Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1905-08-04
STATE BOARD MUST GOVERN
Tar Levy and Valuation Of 1t Holds for
Locals, Says slabaugb.
COUNTY ATTORNEY HANDS DOWN OPINION
Cites Authorities to show that Prec-
edent Set by state should he
Followed by the Local
Boards.
COUNTY ATTORNEY HANDS DOWN OPINION

In an opinion prepared for the Board of
County Commissioners concerning the tax
levy and the valuation that should govern
the making of the same, County Attorney
Sabaugh holds that the valuation fixed by
the State Board Sof Equalization and AS
sessment must govern the local board in
making its levy. His opinion is as follows:
To the Honorable Board OF Count Com
missioners, Douglas County, Nebraska!
GentIemen-in reply to the question sub
mltted to me as to whether or not the val
ues fixed is binding upon the county as
basis Of taxation for county purposes, |
have this TO say: From an investigation of
the law and Of decisions OF other states Of
by the STATE boaid is binding upon our
county board as the value for taxation for
In Baldwin against Ellis the supreme
court Of California holds on statute quite
"If II was not the scheme Of the law that
there should be but one true valuation and
that the one fixed by the state board, why
the enactment that the county board should
fix the rate Of taxation after the former
board had acted2 A taxpayer cannot be
damaged under this construction OF the law
for II the valuation were less the per-
centage OF taxation would be Of necessity
larger, and II by the action OF the state
centage necessary to meet county and
state expenses would be less. Under the
law all taxable property must be assessed
at its full cash value. If the appellants
theory Of the law be the proper one then
there must be two cash valuations of the
same piece of property at the same as
sessment. one for state and another for
county purposes. There can be no real
need of state board OF equalization un-
less its main function be to ascertain and
declare as near as possible the true valua-
ton of taxable property. We cannot I'M
derstand how the true Value mentioned In
the constitution can mean two true values.
The manifest intention of the law is that
when the state board raised the total value
OF the assessment roll of Los Angeles
county It was done for all taxable purposes,
as well county as state"
Nebraska Case in Point.
In the case of Hacker against Howe,
known as the Nemaha case, lOl N. w. 3o,
the same question is settled. The court
there says, speaking of the county and the
state boards of equalization:
+Thess different steps are all essential to
the ascertainment OF the true value OF
property. In 1851 Cob. It is declared that
the action OF the state board shall have
been had, and certified to the county clerks
and by them extended on the tax rolls. The
assessment thus made and corrected by the
county and state boards of equalization
for that Year Yes nan and taxes for ali purposes
shall be levied upon such final assessment;
The Nebraska case seems 10 clearly settle
the question and should the question arise
as to whether the action OF the state board
In raising certain properties would be an
supreme court In the above case-says:
ut is claimed that all property In Mem
aha county valued by the county COM
. missioners at its full and actual value and
that the increase ordered by the state
board will result in an over-valuation of
property and operate as a discrimination
weakness of the position lies in the prem
ises advanced I'm the support of It, II Is
not conceded that the property assessed
by the county authorities Ia at its full val.
uation.' The values are to be determined
not by the county assessor alone, but only
In conjunction with equalizing boards and
the power is given the state board to in
crease or decrease the assessed valuation
Of any county, and such valuation Is not
finally determined until the state board has
w. w, sLABAUGH. County Attorney.
Acts Under Amendment.
,,,, The, state board acted this year under
the amendment to the revenue law en-
towering It to do as it has done in raising
the items Of merchandise and horses, fol
instance, I'm Douglas county, after the loca
board had made its equalization for the
purpose OF making the levy for local pur
poses.
Tax Commissioner William Fleming ha,
decided views about the increase of Il
per cent In the assessed value of merchan
disc in Douglas county.
"This is all brought about" said he, "by
the acts of a few large firms in this city
whom / can number almost on the fingers
OF both hands. For years these hrm
have, in every possible way, shirked the
taxes They have been pampered anC
petted at the expense Of other merchant
and other taxpayers. and now becaus
they are too low, 95 per cent of the mer
chants OF the county, who have made fai
returns, are to suffer for the sins OF tn
Sblg fellows. Fifteen per cent increase will