The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1908-09-03
STATE WINS CASES
AGAINST TWO
RAILROADS
Decree Against Rutland and
Central Vermont.
IN THE TAXATION DISPUTES
Railroad Companies Tried to interpret
Laws to Suit Their Own
Purposes.

Burlington, Sept. 3-Judge Seneca
Haselton of Burlington has handed
down a decision OF the cases Of the
state against the Rutland and the
Central Vermont railroad companies
for taxes which were claimed to be
due and unpaid, awarding the state
the full amount OF It's claims. The
amounts involved are: Rutland
railroad, $4,000, Central Vermont,
1876 900. The cases will be carried
TO the Supreme court at the October
term.
! Suits were brought May 20 by At
tomey General Clarks c. Fits against
the Central Vermont railroad and
the Rutland railroad for taxes which
were claimed 10 be due and unpaid
Amounting in the cases OF the Central
Vermont TO 100000 and in the case of
the Rutland railroad TO $4,000. The
suits were returnable at the Grand
/ Isle County court at the August term
The statute imposes an absolute
/ tax of ! per cent on the appraised
value OF each railroad which in the
case OF the Central Vermont and its
I leased lines In this state is s9l, 179.
but a railroad corporation may in
/ lieu OF the l per cent tax. pay a min
imum rate OF 2Is per cent on the
gross earnings when they do not ex.
coed $4,000 per mile Of the roadbed
OF each railroad located within the
state. Th u this rate increases as
the earnih. $ per mile increase.
The Central Vermont railroad COM
pany for the year Of 1907 figured in
all OF it's side tracks and spur tracks
as road bed. making the roadbed for
Vermont 40 miles. The returns pre-
yiously given by this company to the
state commissioner OF taxes made
the mileage 297 miles The increase
In rOadbed increases the taxes and
makes the difference $4,000 year
The attorney general and the com
missioner of state taxes contended
that the mileage of 297 miles was the
correct basis upon which the taxation
should be figured. and they further
claimed that inasmuch as the com
pany had not paid what was due or
the gross earnings it no longer haC
; the option to pay on the gross earn
ings. but must pay the l per cent tax
amounting to $4,000 above what ha(
already been paid.
The statute also imposes a penalt!
OF 800 a day for the failure to pa!
when due. and the accrued penalties
In this instance were figured at 500
0O0. but the court has the right to re
init the penalty.
The Rutland Railroad company Al
so elected to pay on the gross earn
ings. The law requires that the tax
es be paid semiannually and the Rut
land road claims the right to pay tn
minimum rate OF 2ls per cent becaus
the earnings for the semi-annual pei
Tod are not in excess of $4,000 pc
mile although the annual earnings el
coed that sum.
The contention OF the commission
or OF state taxes and the attorne
general was that the strict letter {
the statute should be adhered to, |
making the computations, that III
yearly earnings OF the Rutland raj
road do not come within the minimum
tax rate, and that the proper rat
would increase the company's take
$4,000 a year, also that the compan
had no option but to pay the III
tax on It's valuation, making dlffe
ence OF $4,000. They also contende
that the accrued penalty OF 800 p'
day should be imposed.