The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1903-09-17
oHIo's INIQUlTous TAX lNoUls
ITOR LAW.

II ARMER perkins, should like
N to know something of Ohio's tax
Inquisitor Law
Lawyer Thorndinke-When Mr..
Alfred Kelley started the state on its
wild goose chase after ad yalorem tax
alton in 1916, it took till 1861 for the
taxbearers to get on to the weakness
eD of the law. Under the stimulus Of
the Kelley law. personality on the
grand duplicate in Ohio, sprung from
$4O,S52, ,4J6 in that year to S89,9G4, ,43O
in the following year. 1t made in
creases from that year, yearly, to
1885, when it decreased from the pre-
vious year $14,000000 In 1856 it de-
creased $43, 100000 from the previous
year and increased S23, 100000 in 1867,
but did not come back to former fig
ures by S570OO,O00. In 1858 it de-
creased $23, 100000 more, but increased
$11,O00,OOO in 1859, but in 1860 it de-
creased S3,OOO00O from the former
year. The Kelley tonic had lost its
effect, and in 1861 something had to
be done
On March 20, 1861, the law, which is
the beginning of the tax inquisitor
law, was passed. That law simply
gave the auditor power to put on the
duplicate, omitted personal property,
in the year on which he found it was
omitted, SO Vol. o. L., AZ. This is now
the first part of section 27S1 of the
Revised Statutes. On May II, 1878, 75
Vol. o. L., 457, the act was amended
to go back four years, beginning In
the year in which the investigation
was made.
On April IA, 1886, SO o. L., section
27S1, was amended to extend the in
vestigation back six years This con-
tinued the law till April IA, 1898, 80
o. L., 233, when the act was amended
in the interest of justice
From 1861 to 1898 the law was read
fender Hereunder in the inverse pro-
portion to his property properly re-
turned.
Farmer Perkins-That is singular
statement, Can you give an example
of how the law would so operate?
Lawyer Thorndike-I will bring for
ward our quondam friends, John Doe
and Richard Roe. John Doe for the
nonce shall take the role of the hon
est man and Richard Roe that of the
dishonest man. They shall be each
operated on, under section 27S1, Re-
vised Statutes of Ohio, in the year
1891, for making false returns for tax
alton under section 27S1, which have
been made back to include the year
1886. We will assume that John Doe
in the six years did wilfully and inten-
tionally omit 100000 of his credits,
and that Richard Roe did in the same
period omit $500 of credits, in the
same manner, having returned credits
to the amount of 100000. We will
assume that each should have return
$1OO,6O of credits and that all their
other property, real and personal was
duly returned. We will assume that
each resided in the same taxing dis
trict and that the rate of taxation in
that district during the six years was
uniformly 2 per cent.
The auditor has just previously con-
Cured in the appointment of tax in
quisitor in his county, who is to re-
ceive 20 per cent of what he finds, or
what the auditor finds for him. The
auditor has in mind the 4 percentum
he is to receive under section 1881,
Revised Statutes, and the per cent
his friend, the treasurer, is to receive
under section 1885, Revised Statutes,
and these reflections lend ze5t to his
impartial investigation. He is serving
the third year of his second term, and
has let Mr. Doe escape the previous
five years, so he can obtain his per-
centum for the whole period of six
years.
At the end of five years the auditor
macs up tax bill against our friend,
John Doe. He finds Doe should have
returned S100,600 each year from 1886
to 1891, both years inclusive, but in
fact he only returned 5000 per year for
the six years and paid per cent taxes
or S12 per year, for six years. The
auditor adds the 80 per cent for these
years and makes the basis of his taxes
for each year S150,9O0 at per cent.
This makes John Does tax bill $18,-
10S, on which he had paid $72, which
must be credited and his net tax bill
is S18,036.
Now we will try Richard Roe. He
was honest for 100000, but dishonest
as to $500, but his total returns
should have been the same az his
neighbor's, Jone Doe, in the same tax
ing district.
The auditor makes up for Richard
Roe the same tax bill as against John
Doe, who was one hundred times more
guilty, and it is $1S,108 but Richard
Roe has paid $4,000 per year for six
years on his 100000 credits, and must
have credit for what he has paid. This
sum, $4,000, reduces his tax bill to
$6.1O8, or about 93 per cent of what
John Doe has against him, who, in
stead Of being 66 2-3 per cent more
guilty is one hundred times more
guilty.
John Doe pays his penalty and tax
bill, amounting to $1S,O36, and Roe his
penalty and tax bill, amounting to
$6,10S, making a total of $24,144. OF
this $24,144 the tax inquisitor gets
"a Q0Q fha audifor oafa eacE ia ood