Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1911-08-05
CROP ON LAND NOT
PART OF REAL ESTATE
Fruit Growers Of Berkeley County pro.
test Against Orchards Being TAX
ed on Prospective Values.

Friday 10 the court house. 81 lore
the Board OF Equalization, number
Of interesting and important questions
relative to the enforcement Of the as
sessment law were brought out.
The tax laws of the state which are
row in force require the assessors 10
value all property at its real and ac-
tual value such as 1t would bring at
public sale with the usual terms or
credit. But In making agricultural as
sessments 1t has never been the Gus
tom - to this time to consider the
crop on the land as permanent uart
OF the real estate the assessors value
ing farm and orchard property at the
F, value of the land and buildings only.
| This year. however, the attention OF
the Berkeley county Board OF Eluah-
cation having been called by the State
Tax Department to the fact that orch
ard properties were selling at prices
in excess OF the assessed valuation
the Board felt that in order to comply
/ with the Law they must necessarily, in
the assessment of orchard properties
OF value, assess the trees in addition
to the land. They, therefore, went
over the reports OF the deputy asses
sors and added such values a they
thought proper to orchard properties
wherever they believed such values
| should be Increased.
| II was against this action of the
board that the fruit growers OF Berke-
ley county protested in the meeting
yesterday
Real arguments OF the fruit growers
appear to be along two lines:
First--That such valuations were
unfair to the orchard men as compar-
ed with other farmers. The fruit grow
ers sadd that If 30 or 40 trees on an
acre Of land are to be considered as a
permanent part of the real estate sub
| iect to assessment, so also in fairness
should a field of alfalfa or OF aspara-
gus or of Strawberries or OF any other
I crop be so considered: otherwise the
men, by CRYING asparagus, might net
much more per acre than they could
4 liOlu Wluit tiCCo WAbbVut bttilE 5ubJtCL
4 to the same taxes as the fruit tree
grower
| The fruit men believe that the Leg
isIature which passed the law now in
force, never contemplated that It
would be stretched to include the
crops growing on the land because it
Is manifestly physically impossible
fo- any body of assessors or Board OF
Equalization to 60 over Berkeley colIn-
| y and equitably assess all of the farm
land so as to separate every acre seed
I'd with grass and every acre growing
alfalfa, and every acre bearing berries
and so on. The fruit growers believe
that the law never intended to stultify
itself by imposing on the officials such
impossible tasks.
| Second-As compared with the 9TH
er great lines of industry in this coun-
| ty, namely, manufacturers, the fruit
growers contend that the manufac-
turer or the merchant is assessed. not
on the valuecf his business as going
| concern. including the value OF his
good will and his contracts and sales,
but only the physical property in his
plant such as he can secure to himself
by carrying insurance thereon.
The fruit growers contend that
equity between themselves and manu-
featuring and Enchanting tax payers
requires that the contract which the
fruit growers are making with nature
| in growing an apple tree which con-
tract may at any time terminate II ma
ture sees fit to kill the tree, bears the
same relation to the orchard that the
untitled orders in prospective business
bears to the manufacturing industry.
The speculative value OF the orchard
property depends upon the character
OF the trees, Just as the speculative
value of the mandatory depends up
On the prospective business in sight
and in the sale Of the latter kind OF
property such prospects generally in
fuence entirely the price-but the
prospective business OF the manufac-
turer is not assessed for purchases or
taxation nor are his taxes based on
the amount of money he has been
making during the last year. His as
sessments cover only the land and
buildings and machinery and other
physical permanent fixtures on which
he can secure protection by carrying
insurance. Therefore. in fairness toI
the fruit growers they should be as
sessed only on the land, buildings and
other fixtures on which they might III
they desire carry insurance and
should not be assessed upon
the growing trees or growing alfalfa
or growing asparagus, or any other
growing crops which are not fixtures
but may be dead and gone In a COM
paratively short time without the
farmer in any way being able to guar
antee himself against such loss.
The Board OF Equalization took this
matter OF orchard assessment under
consideration, after hearing the argu-