Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-12-06

662,632.57 is shown In the local tax; the
atables likewise show an increase Of
$96, 20, 1926. SO; the average tax rate also
shows an increase of DAB.
The membership of the board has been
changed during the past year by the
retirement of the president, Major Carl
Lentz, and the appointment as presi-
dent of Frank B. Jess, one of the asso-
ciate members. and Senator Bloomfield
II. Minch as an associate member.
The report. which is unusually lengthy.
butbles over with important. matters
of interest to the people of the State in
general. n the people In Newark and
other municipalities in particular.
The report e as follows:
In its appellate capacity the BOARD
has considered 8S1 petitions during the
past year. These have been of a con
siderable diversity of character, rang
ing ron farm lands and private resi-
dences to large corporate holding of
manufacturing, railroad. steamship
n similar properties. Some of them
were brought on questions of fact and
others involved points of law.
Bank A~sscssments Considered.
The assessment of bank stock has
occupied a considerable share of the
poard's attention, a number of appeals
having been filed from such assess
ments particularly from the city. of
Newark, where a number of stockhold-
ers in four Newark banks filed petit
lions. The city of Newark commended
that these shares should be assessed
at their value in the open market, al
lowing the deductions for real estate
and exempt securities provided by law,
and the appellants held thai they
should be assessed according to what
the books Of the bank showed the value
of its assets to be. After considering
the able argument submitted by coun-
sci for both sides, the majority OF the
board decided that the proper way to
ascertain the true value of bank stock
for the purpose of taxation is to take
the total OF the bank, deduct
therefrom the total liabilities, the real
estate and the exempt securities and
divide the result by the number Of
shares. Two minority opinions were
filed in this case, one agreeing in the
main with the majority opinion. u
reaching the result by a different
method Of computation, and the other
the contention for an assess
ment on the basis Of market value"
Elsewhere in this newspaper Is that
section of the report that deals with
the P~rudentia1's case.
Important Issues Raised.
The report continues:
Another important, point of law was
brought up in a group Of appeals filed
by various New Jersey corporations
from assessments on personal property,
levied against them by the city of Jer-
sey City, in which municipality each of
the appellant companies keeps an office
and its stock and transfer books, ac-
cording to the statute. 1t was agreed,
by stipulation between the parties. that
these corporations owned no property,
real or personal, in the taxing district
of Jersey City. and did not on May 20.
1909; that their business was conducted
elsewhere in each instance and that
their real and personal property was
located outside said city; that their
real and personal property had been
assessed for the year 1909 in the yari-
Gus States and localities where h
business of the corporation in question
was conducted, and the taxes paid
thereon; that these assessments were
less than the true value Of the prop,
erty, by the amount of the assessments
under review in this proceeding, and
that the appellants were, on May 20.
1909, possessed of Intangible assets to
the value of the assessment under
review IN each case.
Board Rules on Involved Issue. 4.
These cases therefore involved the
theory that the taxing district can
reach by its power of taxation per-
sonal property lying beyond Its terri
torial Jurisdiction, and also the fiction
of law hat personal property follows
the domicile of the owner. 1t Is i'm
possible here to go at length into the
submitted by both sides,
both at the hearing and in the very
able briefs filed by h city and the
appellants, or to follow the
points on which the board reached its
conclusion, save in the briefest way.
The judgment of the board was that
these assessments must be cancelled,
as they were against personal property
outside of the State, on which
taxes had been assessed and paid
the preceding twelve months in
the foreign States, which property is
from further taxation in New
Jersey under section three of the gen.
eral tax act of 1903. The city con-
on this point that as the as
levied on this property in
the foreign States had been less than
the true value of the property by the
of the assessment under re-
view, and as the appellants were
possessed on May twentieth of intan-
gible assets to the value of the assess
ments imposed by Jersey City, the
property sought to be assessed by Jer-
5ey City had not been taxed elsewhere
so as to entitle 1t to exemption under
three of the general tax act of
1903. The board held that to pass on
his question would involve a review
Of the acts of the taxing officers of
States, an action which would
be beyond the jurisdiction of this
Many Appeals Filed.
''The Pennsylvania Tunnel and
Terminal Railroad Company has filed
eighteen appeals from assess
nents on it's property in five taxing dis
tricts in Hudson county, aggregating
8 ,670, 900. The assessments cover the
ears 1905 to 1909, inclusive, being made
according to the progress of the work
IN May 20 Of each year. These as
,aScrnante which Gre on the right of