The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-06-02
BREWER & co.
WIN CASE
Its Own Valuation
Confirmed by
Court.
Castle 6 Cooke Come
Out the Same
Way.
Opinion Of Chief Justice FreaF
and Justice Perry-Justice
GaIbraith Oissents.

Two of the most important tax ap-
peal cases were decided in majority
opinions of the Supreme Court handed
down yesterday afternoon, both written
by Justice Perry and signed by Chief
Justice Frear with the author. The
taxable values of their respective prop
critics as returned by C. Brewer & Co.,
Ltd, and Castle & Cooke, Ltd, are
confirmed on appeal from the Tax APP
peal Court. Justice Galbraith writes a
dissenting opinion in the Brewer case,
but merely records his dissent in the
Castle & Cooke case. w. A. Whiting
and c. F. Clemens appeared for the
Brewer. and w. r. Castle for the Cas-
tie & Cooke corporation, Robertson &
Wilder representing the assessor in
both cases. The Brewer opinion is ex-
haustive, covering eighteen typewriter
pages Its ascertained law is con-
densed in the following syllabus:
Enterprise as used in the third
paragraph of Section $50, c. L., means
the combined property which forms the
basis of an enterprise Inter-1sland
Steam Navigation Co. VS.. Shaw, 10
Haw 624, followed.
Under the term combined proper
ty' as used in that section no property
is made taxable which is not included
within the definitions of the terms real
property and personal property set
forth in Sections S1S and S19.
1.-The stocks and bonds of private cor
porations are not taxable under exist
ing laws in this Territory.
Sugar plantation agency contracts
are contracts within the meaning OF
that word as used in Section S19, and
taxable, but neither promissory notes
nor accounts receivable are such con-
tracts nor are they taxable.
Where by reason of the skill, expert
ence and integrity of the officers and
servants of a corporation, its good VIII
and the unity of ownership and the
unity of use of it's various items of
property, the value of the tangible
property of such corporation is in
creased, such increase of value is never
theless the value of such tangible prop
erty and the latter is taxable under our
statute at such increased value.
when the combined property forming
the basis of an enterprise for profit
consists in part of taxable and in part
of non-taxable property and by reason
of unity of ownership and unity of use
and other intangible elements the ag-
gregate value of all of such combined
property is increased, such increment
of value in so far as it is due to the
non-taxabIe property is not taxable;
and when the increment of value OF
the taxable property is due wholly to
it's unity of ownership and use with
the non-taxable and not to the unity
of ownership and use of it's own parts
when, in other words, the taxable prop
erty, considered independently of the
taxa BILE, is of no greater value
when combined in use as an enterprise
for profit than the total of its separate
parts-such increment is not taxable.
In ascertaining the aggregate value
of all the property owned by a cor
poration the amount of the debts, If
any, of the corporation should be adj
ded to the selling price of the shares
of its capital stock
The appellant returned for taxation
for the year 1902 its leasehold interest