The copper era and Morenci leader., 1912-10-04
IN THE M I N ES
PRODUCING MINES MUST PAY SAME
 STATE TAX
Supreme Court of the State Holos That Board of Supers'%. of Yavapai County Did Not Have
 Legal Right to ReducS Ass
 essment in that County.

essment in that. County.
 The Supreme Court of the Sta +e
 this week rendered an important de
 cision bearing upon the question of
 assessment and taxation in the State
 of Arizona.
 The case grew out of action of the l County Board of Equalization of Yav;l pal County at their August meeting
 when the assessment of the mines of
 the United Verde Copper company
 was reduced from the figures as re
 turned by the County Assessor and the mines were placed on the assess ment roll of that county for FIFTY per cent of their gross output for the year 1911.
 It will be remembered that the State Tax Commission had recom- mended to the several County Assess ors that in assessing the mines of the large producing mining companies that the gross output of the mines for the proceeding year should be taken as the basis of assessment. This was l in the assessment of the Arizona Cop per Go. Ltd, and the Detroit Copper Go.
 As the matter stood there was an unequal assessment of the mines of Greenlee County as compared with tEe mines of Yavapai County and on be- half of the State the Attorney General brought a mandamus suit to compel the Board of Equalization of Yavapai county to assess the producing mines of Yavapai county as other producing mines in the state were assessed. The decision of the Supreme Court SUD- ported the contention of the AttorneS General.
 The decision of the Supreme Court will recover for the state additional taxes from Yavapai county totaling approximately s7O,OOO 0O
 The United Verde alone will pay $25,000 more than it would have paid under the lowered assessment. Had the supreme court decided in favor of the supervisors, the Copper Queen and other big companies in Cochise and MchaVe counties would have insisted on paying state taxes under the valua- ton placed upon their property for county taxation purposes. The county valuations are lower than the state valuations fixed by direction of the tax commission in those counties.
 In the opinion which was rendered by the whole court the contentious of the attorney general were upheld in every particular, the court decid- ing that boards of equalization are 'quasi-judicial bodies, but inferior in the powers granted them by law They must therefore scrupulouslv limit their acts to doing those things which the law directly empowers them to do. They may not revoke, set aside, modify or annul an order or decision of their own without the law grants them the right. If the board may make two reductions, as is attempted in this case, it having been shown that the board had pre- viously reduced the assessment of the patented producing mines of the United verde company to the report made to the state board of equaliza- tion upon which the state rate was fixed, there is no reason why it may not make more. If it may reduce ad libitum it would likewise have power to make as many raises as it may please and as often as it could secure the appearance of the taxpayer" Having acted upon the as SeSsments of the United Verde at it's July meeting it's order at that meet | ing became final. If the company was | with it's assessments as | fixed by the board of equalization at | that meeting it had the right of ap peal as set forth in paragraph 3S75 | of the Revised Statutes of Arizona This statement on the part of the court is sustained by numerous ref erences to similar cases decided in the courts of other states notably Nevada, Michigan and California.