The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-09-28
PROSSER'S BRIEF
IN TAX MATTER

| Besides returns made by James L.
| Holt, tax assessor of the first division,
and j. K. Farley, tax assessor of the
| fourth division. to the alternative writ
| of mandamus sued out by the County
| of Kauai, a brief on behalf of both
| those respondents has been prepared
| by NJ. f. Prosser, Deputy Attorney
General
Mr.. ProSSer takes pains at the out
| set to show that the attorney Gener-
| ais Department does not appear for
| the County of Oahu as against the
County of Kauai, or vice versa, but
having advised the Treasurer of the
Territory and the assessors named "in
regard to their legal duty in the mat
ter of assessing taxes as against the
corporations named" the Department
now appears for the purpose of de-
Tending their official actions based up
on the advice of this Department
He proceeds to elaborate contentious
that it is sought by the writ to COM
pei the assessors to do things not re-
quired of them by law, some of the
things even being impossible to do
without violating the legal obligations
of their office. OF the latter class is
submitted to be the command in the
writ that the assessor Of the first di-
vision forward to the assessor of the
fourth division all income taxes here
tofore collected by him from the cor
porations mentioned in the writ.
As to the main claim of the re-
latorS, that the corporations in ques-
ton, because their mills and planta-
lions are located on the Island of Ka-
uai, are taxable there, Mr.. Prosser
says there might be something in it
We're it not for the fact that the cor
porations named have voluntarily, and
most of them as required by law, cer-
titled that their principal place of busi-
ness was in Honolulu. He contends
that the intent of the Legislature was
that corporation should have place
of residence for taxation purposes. On
this point quoting a New York case in
support of his contention, he offers
this local illustration:
I'VE viii suppose, for instance, that
the Lihue plantation was owned in
fee simple by Mr.. Paul Isenberg, of
Honolulu, who has a legal residence
within Honolulu. In spite of the fact
that the plantation referred to is
located entirely on the Island of Ka-
uai, and its business entirely conduct
ed there, the taxes on the income re-
ceived therefrom by Mr.. Isenberg
would be payable in their entirety
within the district of Honolulu, in the
first taxation division
With regard to the claim by Kauai
for half OF the income taxes in ques-
ton, it is submitted that Oahu has an
interest in the decision and, there
fore, the court can not decide in favor
of the REALTORS with the County of
oahu having been made party to
the proceedings. 1t is also submitted
that no demand has ever been made
upon Holt for the money, but that
such demands as We're made We're
made upon the Treasurer of the Ter
ritory, who is not a party 10 these
The demand should be
made at such time and place, and in
such form and manner, that it was
the respondents duty to comply there |
with.
The case was to have come uD be-
fore Judge Hardy at Lihue yesterday.
]. D. Willard. Kauai County Attorney,
appears for the writ, assisted by D.
H. Case, representing Maui as having
a common interest with Kauai. Mr.. |
Prosser represents the Territory while |
:. a. Douthitt. Oahu County Attorney. |
watches the case for Oahu.