The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-01-18
HOW INTANGIBLE PROPERTY
SHOULD BE TAXED

atoms successfully contended that they
ought to be taxed only upon their. visible
tangible property. In last Sundays
News and Observer, in an editorial upon
the method OF taxing quasi-public cor
porations, the opinion of Justice Miller
was quoted approving the method pre-
scribed in the Revenue Act of 1901 in
North Carolina, and declaring that
whatever property is worth for the pur-
poses of income and sale it is also worth
for taxation"
The Nichols Law of Ohio required GER
tain incorporated companies doing bust
ness in that State to file return to the
State Board of Assessors setting forth
among other things the number of shares
of capital stock, the par and market
value thereof, and when the shares had
no market value, their actual value at
in detail of the entire real and personal
property of the company, where it was
located and it's value. The assessments
were made by the board, being guided
by the rule laid down that the value Of
the property for taxation should be de-
termined by the value Of the entire cap
ital stock of the company, etc. The
value of properties belonging to certain
express companies doing business in the
O
both tangible and intangible property.
Bills were filed to enjoin the collection
of these taxes on the ground that the
companies had no property in the State
of Ohio except certain horses. wagons,
harness and the like.
The questions involved were pass
ed upon by the Supreme Court Of the
United States in Adams Express Com
pany v Ohio, 165 U. S. 1914, chief Justice
Fuller, delivering the opinion of the
court at PIP. 221 and 222, says;
mo more reason is perceived for linn
ting the valuation of the property OF
express companies to horses, wagons and
furniture than that of railroad tele-
graph and sleeping car companies, to
road-bed, rails and ties; poles and wires;
or cars. The unit is unit of use and
management. and the horses, wagons,
safes pouches and furniture, the con-
tracts for transportation facilities; the
| capital necessary to carry on the bust
ness. whether represented in tangible or
intangible property, in Ohio, possessed a
II,a in, ina from r
connection with the property and capital
| elsewhere, which could as rightfully be
| recognized in the assessment for taxation
| in the instance of these companies as
| the others
A petition for rehearing was filed in
| the case. adams Express Company v
| Ohio, 166 U. S. 1861 The petition was
| denied by Justice Brewer, who uses the
| following language, in delivering thu
! opinion of the court:
'In the complex civilization of today &
| large portion of the wealth of commu
| nifty consists in intangible property, ant
| there is nothing in the nature of thing:
| or in the limitations of the Federal Con
| stitution which restraints State iron
taxing at its real value such Intangible
| property
ut matters not in what this intan
| gible property consists, whether priv
| leges, corporate franchises, contracts o.
| obligations 1t is enough that it is prop
erty which though intangible exists
which has value, produces income ant
passes current in the markets OF thu
world. To ignore this intangible prop
erty or to hold that it is not subject T.
| taxation at it's accepted value, is Z
| eliminate from the reach of the 1axin
| power a large portion of the wealth
| the country. Now, whenever, separat
articles of tangible property are 1oine'
| together, not simply by unity OF own
ership but in a unity OF use, there i
| not infrequently developed a property
| intangible though it may be, which II
| value exceeds the aggregate OF the valu
| of the separate pieces of tangible prop
erty. Upon what theory of substantial
| right can it be adjudged that the valu
| of this intangible property must be ex
cluded from the tax lists, and the onl
property placed thereon be the separat
pieces of tangible property?
What a mockery of substantial jus
d
| property is worth to it's stockholders TO
the purposes of income and sale $16.
800, 900, to be adjudged liable for taxa
ton upon only one fourth of that amount
| THE VALUE WHICH PROPERT'
BEARS IN THE MARKET, TIL
AMOUNT FOR WHICH ITS STOCK Cal
BE BOUGHT AND SOLD, IS THE real
| VALUE. BUSINESS MEN DO NOT PA
CASH FOR PROPERTY IN MOON
| SHINE OR DREAMLAND. They Blu
and pay for that which is of value il
its power to produce income, or for pur
poses of SALE
I'm conclusion, let us say that thi
is eminently a practical age; that court
must recognize things as they are an
as possessing a value which is accorde
to them in the markets of the world, AM
that no finespun theories about stu
| should interfere to enable these larg
| corporations, whose business is carrie
on through many States, to escape fror
bearing in each State such burden o
taxation as a fair distribution of the &C
tual value of their property among thos
States requires.
WILL HAVE "OLD RELIABLE.