Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1911-10-02
BOARD ADJOURNS
PRUDENTIAL TAX
APPEAL HEARING
Believes Its Work SuperfIuOus
Now Because of Manda=
mus Proceedings.
PLEA FOR SUSPENSION
MADE BY CITY LAWYERS
Delay Granted on Three Other
Items Besides Deferred
Dividend Fund.

Hearing on the appeal of the Pruden-
Eal Insurance Company from the de-
cision of the County Board of Taxa
don that it was liable to taxation on
the $2s, 900, 900 deferred dividend fund,
q subject of dispute between the cor
poration and the city taxing and legal
authorities for a long time, was ad-
journed today by the State Board of
Equalization in session in the Common
Council chamber.
The State board was of the opinion
that its work would be superf1uous
now, because since the appeal was
taken mandamus proceedings have
been started in the Supreme Court,
which may settle the issue.
After more than an hours argument
between Herbert Boggs and Francis
Child, sr., on one side, representing the
city, and Edward D.. Duffield and
Major Carl Lentz, representing the
Prudential, an adjournment was also
granted on the appeals from three
items, a~ggregating $780, 900. 1t was
the city that contended for the adj
journments.
The Prudential lawyers offered no OPP
position to the adjournment of the
case. so far as the SOS, 000, 900 fund was
concerned, but maintained that if an
adjournment were granted it should be
on condition that a determination in
She courts of the mandamus action
should end the litigation and that If
the case went against the city on that
proceeding the municipality should be
precluded from having the door OF the
State board kept open.
Mr.. Duffield said that he did not
want to be in the position of one who
might be caught going or coming. He
said that the city should have taken
the mandsmus proceedings to compel
the commissioner of banking and insur-
ance to amend his certificate to the
local taxing authorities several months
earlier, as Commissioner Vivian M.
Lewis had given hfs decision las,
February.
The city mode no attempt TO have
that amended till recently, he declared.
Now, he continued, the city should
aeree that "as goes the case in the
Supreme Court so shall judgment be
entered here
In taking up the three items apart
from the deferred dividend fund, Major
Lentz said that they had never before
been taxed by the city, although al
: eways included in the company's tax
i.3temeiat.
pajdae phator bere interpolated that the
oiDsg atial was not by n means a
EEirker. He pointed out that, in
ading the franchise tax, the com
tspany had paid this year, or would pay,
in taxes 81, 4Bo, ISL, almost o~ne-fourth
of all the taxes levied by the city of
Newark.
II compelled to pay or the $23, 900, 900
fund the amount of Its taxes woul be
almost one-third of all levied by The
city of Newark. The majors figures
included what the company was COM
PEELED to pay because of the decision
of the Court of Errors and Appeals of
last year. He opposed an adjournment
on these items.
Mr.. Child described the majors ar
gcment as a "~gratuitous advertise
ment.' Mr.. Child said that as far as
the $685. 600, 900 fund was concerned the
city could not be asked to restrict its
remedies. That was beyond the pow
ers OF the board and beyond the right
of the Prudential. He denied that the
city had since last February to bring
mandamus proceedings, as the city
knew nothing of the fact that the com
missioner of banking and insurance
had changed his method of computing
the liabilities of the company until the
tax statement of the Prudential had
been filed.
Mr.. Boggs then pointed out that GER
tiorari proceedings might be impossi-
BILE II a decision were given on part
of the appeal. 1t had been suggested
that the testimony might be taken and
the judgment given later. Mr.. Child
sysaid the personnel OF the board might
ohange. Both lawyers for the city
made the point that the appeal was
taken as a whole, that the county board
had given its decision on the question
as a whole, and that separate judg-
ssnents were impossible.
President Jess, announcing the de-
eision of the board, said that an adj
dournment was granted on the case as
presented, but that he could see no
&Jbtections to having the appeals made
separately. The Prudential lawyers
@svare willing, out the CITY would not
grant that concession.