The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1908-06-06
SIDE TRACK PART
Of RAILROAD
MILEAGE
Contention Put Forward BY the
Central Vermont.
ATTEMPT TO AVOID ITS TAXES
Central Vermont Lawyers Make cIsve'
Claim A. To tho Interpretation Of
Tax Law.

Tax Law.
st. Adams, June 4.-The suit
brought against the Central Vermont
Railway company by the state for
1907 taxes claimed due and unpaid. Is
claimed by the railway to be based
upon wrong construction OF the cor.
poration tax law. The railways side
of the case is presented In the follow
ing statement prepared by one OF its
attorneys:
The contention of the state tax
commissioner In the recent suits
brought against the Central Vermont
and Rutland railroads is not that these
corporations have refused to pay the
taxes assessed upon them under. the
recent tax law enacted by the last
session of the general assembly or
that they have in any way evaded the
obligations to the state which that law
imposed. The tax commissioner
seeks construction OF the law differ
ent than the meaning which the rail
roads have placed upon II and which
Increases the taxes to be paid by
large sum OF money. The impression
has gained credence that the rail
roads are refusing to comply with the
plain provisions OF the statute.
A statement of the facts will clear
these corporations Of all intent to OPP
pose the collection of the proper tax
under the law As a matter OF fact
taking the action Of the Central Yer
mont railroad as basis of illustration
the state treasurer has received from
that corporation every dollar of taxes
which the Central Vermont Railway
company considers Is due the state
under the provisions of the law and
has given his receipts therefor. The
state tax commissioner places con-
struction upon the law entirely differ.
ent than its plain language would in
dicate and demands the payment OF a
large additional sum. The railroad
company insisted that It's construction
| Of the language of the law was the
correct construction, and no comprom-
ise being effected the tax commissions
er caused suit to be commenced In
order to have the courts construe the
meaning of the law. I.
The tax commissioner based this
suit upon an assessment of one per
centum upon the appraisal value OF
the railroad property in the state,
claiming that the company, not having
paid the full amount Of tax based up.
on gross earnings, must now pay up.
on an appraised valuation. But the
company had paid upon its gross earn
lings such amount as 1t considered the
law called for, and having done so II
now claims that II is entitled to It's
ELECTION as provided by law, notwith,
standing difference arises between
the railroad and the tax commission
er as to the amount to be paid upon
gross earnings.
Common sense would seem to con.
clude that the railroad company Is
right as TO this contention. The tax
commissioner has no more right to
construe the law than the railroad
company. What he says the law
means Is of no more binding force
than what the railroad company says
1t means. Because difference of op
ini0n exists the tax commissioner sets
up the claim that the railroad com
pany cannot avail itself of the privil
eye Of paying upon the basis OF gross
Earnings which the law provides and
which the company accepted when II
paid the amount Of taxes which II
considered the law called for Both
reason and common sense support the
contention Of the company In It's
claim that this privilege cannot be Ia
ken away from It merely because the
state tax commissioner place a DIFF
ferent construction upon the law thar
did the railroad company. So much
for that phase OF the case.
Coming now to the different meth
DDS OF computing the tax. Sector
ia Of the public statutes provides
that railroads may pay certain pei
centum upon their gross earnings fol
each fiscal. year, and the per centun
fixed is graduated upon the amount
earned per mile "of the road bed O
such railroad located within thi
state"
Now the Central Vermont has
main line In Vermont aggregatinl
1914 miles; with its sidings, spurs
, and double track, its roadbed within
| the state aggregates 400. This dou
BILE track, the sidings and spurs are al
as much part OF the 'roadbed with
In the state" as the main line. The
all cost money; they are all used 1
: earning the gross income Of the road
the income OF the road could not POI
sibly be earned without them; the
Il are property which ought to be take
0 as much as the main line; they are O
3 much part Of the "roadbed With
e the state" used In the operation of tn
t railroad and in the earning of its 4
T. come as any part of the main lin
y The statute In no way distinguish,
r between the "roadbed" OF the maj
II line and the 'roadbed" or doub
4 tracks, sidings and spurs.
:. The railroad company thereto
d placed upon the law the reasonab
9 and comomn construction that Il
statute meant to include In the ter
n "roadbed within the state" Just exat
ID ly what It says, viz: the roadbed
re all tracks within the state. It ther
e. fore based the payment of It's tax
a. upon the gross earnings per mile
It's total roadbed within the stat
Manifestly II the company earned
gross $2,000,000 upon 400 miles
roadbed the tax would be less tn,
10 II II earned the same sum upon a ro
bed 297.4 miles. II the gross earnin