Mexico weekly ledger., 1905-05-11
HADLEY'S OPINION FAvORs
HEAVIEST OF TAX PAYERS.
Personal Property Outside of City
Limits, Owned by Citizens Of City,
Not Subject to City Taxes
Other Than for School
Purposes.

AT the recent meeting OF the State
Association Of County Assessors, held
10 Sedalia, a resolution was introduced
by Assessor Jackson, OF this county,
directing the secretary to ask the
Attorney General for an opinion as 70
the right OF cities and towns to assess
residents on personal property, live
stock especially, when the same Is 10.
Gated outside the limits OF the city OF
town,and asks for an opinion as TO the
assessment Of personal property for
school purposes.
Attorney General Hadley's opinion
upholds the previous custom and ex.
empts all such property from taxation
by the city where the owner may re.
side. This mater was considered By
City Attorney Baker last fall and an
opinion by him at that time was to
the effect that taxes on all personal
property should be paid wherever the
owner resided. Mr.. Baker however
reconsidered this opinion after looking
further into the matter and decided
that such could not be done.
The REIMBURSEMENT OF the city asses
sors booksaccording to Mr.. Bakers
first opinion, increased the valuation
of Mexico's taxable wealth, eos, 900.
The opinion Of Attorney General
Hadley In reference TO this matter is
publised in full.
Toe. O. Marquis. Esq, Secretary State Asso-
citation Of County Assessors. Lexington, Mo-.
JEFFERSON Cry, Mo-, April is, 1905.
Dear Sir: Replying to your favor
of March 10Th, in reference TO the
methods of assessment of personal pro-
perty, live stock especially, by cities.
and towns when the same is located
in the county outside the city, | have
to say that such property cannot, in
my opinion, be lawfully assessed and
taxed in the city. In this case the
situs OF the property controls, and
that being in the county outside the
city, the county alone can exact the
tax. The general rule Is that the
situs of personal property is the domo-
,ile OF the owner, but this rule has its
exceptions, for the courts have held
that it would be violative OF funda-
mental law for the city to assess pro-
perty situated outside Of its corporate
In reference 10 making a separate
list OF personal property for school
ak, when the property is situated in
school district other than where the
'wner resides, will say that / do not
ZEE the necessity Of more than one list
or this reason: The sworn statement
With the number Of school district
marked thereoDl under the law, must
ontain all the taxable personal pro-
'erty In the county where the owner
esides, as well as all other personally
D other counties In the State. The
chool district taxes for the district
here the owner resides are then ex.
ended on the valuations shown by
bis return; and the fact that some OF {
be property shown on this list may
e In other school districts, TO the .
lme or another county, would not /!
lthorize tile exaction Of a school tax ;
q the same. If the method Of taxing !
srsonai property, for school purposes, ?
The district where IL is situated .
ere adopted, without any regard to- :
le domocile OF the owner, much con-
sion would result. Vexing as the 4,
'oblem Of personal assessment now :
II would become stiIl more perplex. Q
g II each school district could levy al
hool tax on personality within It's i
mines when the same property had j
en- listed 10 the domocIle Of the
In another school district, In e
e same or In another county. 4,
may say that the law in reference 4
taxation of personal property is not Q
clear as it might be: it is difficult et
liter to reconcile the vague proyis- Ii
IS Of the statutes with the conflicting D,
Inions Of the courts.
Very truly yours, ss
HFRERRT : HanrRV