The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1903-01-27
MERCHANTS AND SCHEDULE !

acquired extraordinary value by the
fact of combination Of so many gross
of dinner plates, so many dozen water
pitchers, so many lamps, than has the
business of the apple woman on the
street corner, who has combined" as
the basis of an enterprise for profit"
a couple dozen apples, a peck OF pea
nuts, and a handful of sugar cookies.
The fact that the concern is incorporat-
ed, makes no difference; it is the kind
of combination, the peculiar way in
which the several classes of property is
combined and used, that determines
the matter,-not the fact that the en-
terprise is Incorporated.
AS to whether one loses his right to
appeal from the valuation of property
returned for taxation by the failure to
return other property also required to
be listed. Two decisions are valuable.
In a Connecticut case cited by Cooley
on Taxation page 262, note 81, the sta
tute required of the taxpayer full
and true disclosure of all his taxable
property" The taxpayer returned a.
correct description and Valuation of his
real estate, but did not specify the diff
ferent kinds of his personally, as the
act required. The court held, that it
was the duty of the assessors to receive
the same as a valid list of the tax
payers realty, and that the list was
defective only as to personally. Under
the law the penalty for omissions of
the kind was held by the court to be
three-fold the value of the part omit
ted, and not las contended for by the
assessor, to three-fold the value of all
the offenders property page 1873 of the
deCision)-New Canaan VS.. HOyt %
Conn. 14S.
In a Massachusetts case, there was
an appeal from an order of the asses
sors denying a petition for an abate-
ment of a tax on personal property. The
court said Wright VS.. City of Lowell,
166 Mass 29S page 301 of the decision):
without considering the question whe-
Their an inhabitant who brings in list
of his personal property and in .ention-
ally omits to bring in a list of lis real
estate, when the assessors mott re re-
quires the inhabitants to bring in EslS
of their real estate, is by his failure
wholly deprived of a right to- ask for an
abatement or deprived only of the right
to ask for an abatement of his real es-
tate tax, we are of opinion, that upon
the facts, it was competent for the
Superior Court to find that the petition
er was not deprived by her omission to
mention the house and lot on which
she lived, in the list of their properly
not exempt which she brought in, of
the right to have an abatement Of her
personal property tax. 1t was held in
Great harrington VS.. County Comrs,
112 Mass 21S, 223, that the condition i'm
posed by the statute being merely that
a list shall be filed, with the signature
and oath of the taxpayer, that it is
full and accurate according to his best
knowledge and belief such a list, made
and filed in good faith, entitled the
party to be heard upon his application
for an abatement although an item of
taxable property may have been omit
ted, of the omission was honestly
made. Wright VS.. City of Lowell, 166
Mass. 29S.
Under the Connecticut decision, supra
tax list may be valid as to the items
returned although defective as to
others.
Under the Massachusetts, decision,
supra, the taxpayer is not deprived of
his right to question the valuation of
the assessor, because of the fact that
a complete return of all property was
not made provided the omission was
honestly made. One, therefore, who
failed to make return of certain facts
because of the belief that the law did
not require those facts of him, is not
deprived of his right to appeal from
the valuation of the items of property
of which he did make return.
w. w. DimOnd chairman of the legls-
latiVe committee of the Merchants AS
sociation has addressed the following to
the memebers of the association:
Honolulu, y. H., January 81, 1908. To
the Merchants of Honolulu.
Gentlemen: I desire to correct the in
depreciation of my remarks at the
meeting of the Merchants Association
yesterday.
What l intended to convey was that
the legal opinions of Judge Whiting and
Attorney General Andrews We're not at
variance { a perusal of the concluding
remarks in the opinion of Attorney
General Andrews will I think, corrObo-
rate this statemenD only that Judge
Whiting was more pronounced and de-
cided in his views of the case, but that,
however, l considered it best for the
Association not to take action in de-
Gliding the matter leaving it entirely
with it's individual members as to whe
Their or not Schedule I should be in
cluded in making their tax returns.
Very respectfully,
w. w. DIMOND,
Chairman Committee of Legislation.
A