The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-12-05

About $1,000 Lost by Mistake
in Assessing MOnsarrat
Property.


of James L. Holt, assessor and col
leetor, First Taxation Division, against
E. j. Monsarrat. The assessments OF
five years stated on the Monsarrat
property at Union street and Adams
lane. in which defendant has a life
interest are declared to be void Some
thing like $1,000 in taxes is thereby
uneollectable.
As the case is entirely a new one
here, with respect to the law points
involved, the decision is here given in
full:
The plaintiff, as assessor and collec-
tor of taxes, brings this action against
the defendant to recover the sum of
SIS03. SO, together with penalty and in
terest thereon and costs. OF this sum,
so claimed, S2.4S is for taxes assessed
against the person and income OF the
defendant for the years 1901 and 1903,
and $180I.50 thereof is for taxes as
sessed against the person and prop
erty of the defendant for the years
1899 to 1905 inclusive.
The property mentioned consists of a
certain lot of land and improvements
thereon, situated at the junction OF
Union street and Adams lane in Ho-
nolulu, and personal property of small
value.
The land was conveyed to the de-
PENDANT to have and to hold for and
during the term of her natural life,
with remainder over to others, by deed
of May 26, 1884. which deed was duly
recorded on June 20, 1884.
For the years 1899, 1900, 1901 and
1903 no returns were made of the prop
erty and the assessor assessed the same
to the defendant as absolute owner
thereof.
For the years 1902 and 1905 returns
were made for the property by j. NJ.
;Aonsarrat as the attorney in fact for
the defendant. At the trial herein,
however, he testified that he had no
authority to make the returns, and that
he made and swore to them as mat
ter of convenience only. There being
no evidence tending to contradict this
testimony or TO operate by way OF es-
TOPPED against the defendant, it follows
necessarily that defendant can not be
bound by these returns. Consequently
they will not be considered.
For the year 1904 the property was
returned by the defendant personally,
and for that year she comedies that she
Is liable for the taxes. She also con-
cedes her liability for the income tax
of s2.4S for the years 1901 and 1908.
Beyond these concessions she contends
that the plaintiff is not entitled to re-
cover, and that the assessments having
not been made in accordance with Sec
tion 1917, Revised Laws, they are void.
A valid assessment is Indispensable to
a recovery by the Territory for taxes
alleged to be due and payable.
Subject to constitutional restrictions,
it is for the legislature within it's dis
erection to provide the method and mode
of assessing property for purposes of
taxation. The assessment should be
made in accordance with these provis-
ions, and with the securities and So
IDENTITIES provided by statute" "a Ency.
Law, 667.
THE revenue laws usually direct the
assessment to be made against the
person liable for the taxes, and iii his
name. This requirement is held to be
for the benefit and protection of the
taxpayer, and mandatory in the alb
sence of legislation to the contrary;
noncompliance Herewith by the assess
ing officers rendering the assessment
void" I'D. GID
Section 1917 Or. L., which is clear
and explicit, provides that
THE interest of every person in any
property shall be separately assessed
. and every person shall be liable
TO taxation in. respect of the full value
of his interest in such property"
No appeal having been taken from
any of the assessments, the plaintif
now contends that the defendant can
not successfully plead that such as
as 1 understand the law to be, the alb
solute flegality of an assessment may
be successfully pleaded in defense, al
such assessment.
"A tax cannot be enforced or collect
ed until it has been assessed as pro-
vided by law" q Ency. P. & P. S7s.
The question thus presented for con-
sideration is. were these assessments
void or not?
Blackwell on Tax Titles (Vol. 1, Sec.
2S4). with regard to the assessment of
different interests in the same land,
says:
Land held in division must be as
sessed according TO the title. Only the
undivided interest of joint owner can
be legally assessed as his property,
and not any definite part or stipulated
number of acres. An assessment is the
foundation of tax proceedings, and is
like judgment. Surely. a sheriff could
not seize and sell certain number of
acres, or a definite part of land held
by A, the Judgment debtor, in in
division with B., and make delivery
of the same to the purchaser. Under a
statute requiring apportionment be-
tween those having separate estates
in the land. a street assessment upon
land of A. B. cannot be assessed wholly
TO the husband of A. B., who has only
a life estate in her land. but must be
apportioned to each in proportion to the
right of property
Hillard. Law on Taxation (Sec. 90),
says: with reference to the various
points. of a description of the prop
erty and the party taxed, and a valu-
alton of the property, as affecting the
validity of the assessment; in general.
the assessment must be certain in des-
ignating the person chargeable, the
amount OF the charge. and the proper
ty upo0 which the n sSsSSroa1+ &c r,a1a