The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-01-27
Continued from Page u

take oath to the accuracy thereof, the
Assessor may make such assessment
| according to the best information with
in his reach, and the same shall be
binding and conclusive upon all parties,
and shall not be subject to appeal"
| The validity of both these acts was
brought into question in an appeal by
the Inter-Island Steam Navigation
Company against Shaw, on January IL,
1897, and by the decision of the Supreme
Court the act was sustained and re-
turns required to be made in accord
ance Herewith.
| It has been repeatedly held by the
courts, not only here but throughout
the United States that legislatures have
the power to require a taxpayer to fur
nish to the assessor a detailed state
ment of his affairs, such as a list of
| his taxable property in detail, or in
case of corporations, a list of their
| tai stock, a report of the amount of
their business, and the amount of their
Indebtedness, and in order to enforce
| these provisions penalties may be pro-
vided for in case such law is violated.
The nature of the penalty varies in diff
ferent jurisdictions In this Territory,
under Sec. S72 referred to, the person,
refusing or neglecting to make the
statutory return is bound by the asses
sor's estimate and is deprived of the
right of appeal. This law in my opin-
ion is perfectly valid and constitutional
The statute however being penal in its
nature, and mere irregularity or mis-
take in the return, where there was no
attempted evasion of the law, or wilful
noncompliance with it, would not just
ify the enforcement of the penalty, but
wilfuI omission of any taxaD:e prop
erty from the return, or in my opinion
a deliberate noncompliance with thel
substantial provisions of the law would
deprive the taxpayer of an appeal, I'M
less such noncompliance was ac-
quiesced or consented to by the tax,
assessor. The person making the re-
turn should take care that he substan-
TALLY complies with the statute, but
even where there is an absolute refusal |
or neglect to make any return what
ever, the assessor cannot act arbitrari-
Iy, and though his valuation, even if
greatly excessive, might not under such
circumstances be subject to appeal, yet
am of the opinion that any arbitrary
and manifestly unfair assessment would
be subject to review in some other man
ner. In making his assessment the as
SCISSOR must act according to the best
information within his reach.
A taxpayer is not however required
to answer every enquiry which an as
SCISSOR, in his excessive zeal, or in an
endeavor to unduIy pry into the affairs
of his neighbors, may include in the
schedule contained in the forms of re-
turn. The taxpayer in my opinion is
only required to furnish such informa-
ton as is called for by the statute I'M
der which he makes his return. Sec.
81 referred to requires the person MAX
ing the return to give a detailed de-
scription of the property and to state
the aggregate value thereof. taking in
to consideration, the net profits, gross
receipts, actual running expenses, or, if
corporation, the market value of the
stock, etc.
He is further required to state the
net profits as we'll as the gross proceeds !
and actual running expenses of the en-
terprise during the preceding twelve
months I think that of the ten state /,
m he
included in the return, as above emu
merated, only the first, third and fourth /
need be made. The other particulars
required do not seem to be authorized |
by the statute and we do not think
any rights would be lost by refusing to !
particular objection to giving the in
formation desired, it would undoubtedly |
be safer to fill out the whole of sched-
ule a.
1t has been held in this Territory that
the Supreme Court has jurisdiction,
even where a right of appeal from the
assessment made has been lost either
by a failure to make return, or to prop |,
erly verify the same, where it appears
that a question of the construction or
constitutionality of a statute is involv-
ed. 1t would therefore still be open
to party to test the validity or con-
stitutionality of a tax law, and to have
its provisions construed where the Ian
guage was doubtful, even if no return
had been made, and the assessor had
proceeded to make an estimate accord
ing to the best Information within his
reach. Such review however I do not
| think would affect the assessment made
unless the assessor had proceeded upon
mistaken idea of the legal effect of
the statute, or unless the statute was
unconstitutional or for any other rea-