The Athena press. [volume] (Athena, Umatilla County, Or.) 18??-1942, 1909-01-29
STATE TAX TANGLE.
Recent Decision of Supreme Court Pro.
misses Untold Complications In
Illegal Plan.

The following taken from the PEN
dleton East Oregonian will he found of
interest to Umatilla county tax payers: !:
The foresight of Assessor @. P. Strain
in changing the basis of valuation in
Umatilla county from 100 cents on the
dollar to 20 cents made by him to GOV
err the assessment of 1908 was demon
strated in the decision of the Supreme
court rendered by Justice Bean in the
Yamhill county case. The possibility
of such decision and the resulting
complications were the reasons for the
change in the method of assessment
made by Mr.. Strain and as result
even change to the apportionment of
state taxes upon the basis of the as
sessed valuation of the county will
work no injustice to Umatilla county
taxpayers.
The decision of the court rendered
by Justice Bean declared the present
system of apportionment unequal and
unconditional, hence it is held that
the state has no right to collect the
tax. Hence il any taxpayer paws the
amount of his tax under protest and
then brings suit to compel it's return
the supreme court OF the state has
practically said it will give him his
money back.
Another grave possibility is that
other taxes may be held up by the
tangle, for taxpayers are likely to re-
fuse to pay the state tax at all and the
usual practice of tax collectors has
been to render QUE bill for all branch
es Of the tax and to refuse to accept
part payment. If this policy should
be pursued all the machinery would
be stopped and the enforcement of the
unprotected tax by separate suits would
be an unthinkable process. The prob
able policy, 1t is safe to predict would
be to allow the payment of otner taxes
until the state tax problem can be
worked out.
According to Tax Collector Funk of
the sheriff's Office the effect of the de-
oision, should the taxpayers of the
county refuse to pay would simply be
TO charge them with the costs of liti-
cation, as If the state should not re-
ceive taxes for the present year it
would run through the coming year
on deficit which would have to be
made up in the year to come SO that
the legal assessment next year for the
expenses of the state would probably
be double that Of the year past should
the taxpayers take advantage of the
decision and refuse to pay up.
Since then the state is in a position
where it is seriously threatened with
no income during the coming year 1t
IL believed that some new method will
be devised by the present legislature.
applicable to the recently completed
assessment whereby the difficulty will
be solved. One plan Is to accept the
various valuations of the counties as
given in by the assessors and taking
the sum needed by the state to appor-
tion it among the counties upon suuh
basis.
Of course the city, county and dis
trict taxes are not affected by the tan
gle over the state payment except In
90 far as they may be complicated by
refusal Of tax collectors to accept a
portion Of property owners tax
without all Of it being paid. Payment
under protest will uudoubtedly be-
permitted. hut many will doubtless
refuse to pay the state tax at all. being
advised in advance by the supreme
court that it cannot be collected legal,
ly. and knowing that if paid. long
delay and possible litigation might
result before the state portion of the
tax would be returned.
Since the above was in type. an
emergency hill, drawn on the sugges
tion of Justice Bean. providing for
state tax apportionment 10 be equal
ized by the state board. has teen
passed by the legislature. The state
| board comprises the governor, the
secretary Of state and the state trea
surer,