The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1908-07-01

instead of for one year only as at pres
ent. In this view the Commission con-
ours, and for several reasons In the
first place. certainty as to the amount
OF the tax payable by taxpayer is de-
sirabie as is also the avoidance of the
annoyance and the expenditure i'm time
and money consequent upon yearly as
sessments and adjustment of objec-
ions thereto Secondly, while Ordin-
arily the encouragement of litigation
is something to be avoided, yet il is
proper and desirable that an opportun-
lJy DE given to any taxpayer who feels
aggrieved by the valuations of the as
SCISSOR, to have such valuations review
ed by an Independent Court. In theory
such opportunity is afforded in all
cases by the law as it now stands. In
practice, however. it cannot be denied
that there is a large class of cases
where it is impracticable because of
the large outiays necessary for attor-
ney's fees and other expenses and be-
cause of the smallness of the amount
of taxes in controversy, to take an APP
peal The change by increasing the
amount of taxes at stake would tend
to reduce very largely the number OF
cases in the class just referred to and
to remove the feeling of discomfort on
the part of such smaller taxpayers,
whether the appeals be in fact taken
or not Again, the work of the tax
Office would be considerably lessened
in consequence of the amendment and
would enable the officers to devote
more time to other details where it is
needed. Further, If past experience
can be relied upon as guide, it is safe
to say that within the period for which
the assessments are to continue in
force, no great changes in value either
for or against the Government or the
taxpayer are probable. In the long
run no unfairness will result to either
! party.
In those states IN which this plan
has been adopted the period has varied
from two years to ten years, presum-
ably in accordance with the degree of
| huctuation expected in the values of
property. The Commission recon-
mends that in this Territory it be fix
ed at three years, which includes of
course the assessment year. Later the
| Legislature may see fit to either in
crease or decrease the length of this
period in accordance with the expert
ence under the amendment now pro-
posed.
1t would be desirable to ADOPT this
system with reference to all property
| subject to the general property tax;
but it would be impracticable to do
/ This for mnln a fA
erty, because of frequent changes in
the amount, ownership and value OF
the property sought to be taxed. So
too, the new method should not be ap-
piled to property taxed as part of an
enterprise for profit, because of the
constant changes in the amount and
proportions of the property which are
used in combination in such enter
prises. The recommendation here
made is that the change apply to real
estate (other than that taxed as part
OF an enterprise for profit, including
in that term, in consonance with the
| provisions OF section liza of the Re
Vlsed Laws all improvements; tnat az
lowance be mace in the non-assess-
ment years TOR all physical additions
10 or dlnIlnuLlons Ill improvements
upon the property assessed under the
tnree-year system. sucn allowance
consisting or the tull cash value OF
SuCn imp oVements SO ADDED or lost
and wnen so found TO be added to OF
suDtracLed IRON the full cash vaIue OF
Jne property as it existed the preced-
ing year as nXed by the assessment in
tue last preceding assessment year.
Provision snou.d also be made for
the assessment at any time whatsoever
OF properly not heretofore assessed
| from Whatever cause such omission
may have resulted, the assessment sc
made to continue in force until the
next assessment year, and the amend
ment should further name the assess
ment years. In the Exhibits which are
attached to and made part Of this re.
post, are forms OF bins intended to eX-
press and etfectuate the amendments
which are recommended in this report
For the changes thus far recommend
ed see Exhibit "A, Sections and X
pages -.
BY WHOM ASSESSMENTS TO Be
MADE AND APPEALS HEARD.
These two subjects are so closely
| O.dISu llleiI JuGy Will NC COuSlu6IGu "
gether. Various suggestions have beer
made for amendments in these re
spects Some tax payers, and prac
tically all the assessors, favor the ere
alton OF a board of assessors, say o
three members, who shall in place O
the one assessor now provided by Law
tor each taxation division, fix the val
ues of all property subject to assess
ment. AS to whether or not in tina
event the Tax Appeal Court should b.
abolished and to what extent and t
what other tribunals appeals should b
|, permitted from the assessments of tn
board, these taxpayers and assessor
are not as clear. Others favor the re
|, tention of the present system, still
others a board Of assessors with an ap
peal to the Circuit Judge at Chamber
, and subsequently to the Suprem
Court, while some would evidentl
= prefer the substitution of an appea
! from the one assessor to a Circui
Judge at Chambers, with the abolitio
of the Tax Court, as the only chang
J in the law. 1t seems fairly certai
and natural that it would be most sal
icfa NJ prX To oil o4