Newark evening star and Newark advertiser., 1912-11-18
PRU WINS FIGHT;
GIVEN REDUCTION
County Board Orders $780,
1o2,29o.36 Stricken from
Assessment.
MUTUAL BENEFIT
ALSO GETS DECISION
$2,433,o24.17 Remitted from
List of the Local
Officials.

The County Board of Taxation to-
day started a three-day session that
may result in the loss of several
millions in the taxable value of prop
erty owned by insurance companies
in Newark. The first case. that of
Company, was disposed of in short
order. the tax board, after hearing
statements from Edward E. Rhodes,
president. and David Kay, 1r.,
and former Judge Jay Ten Eyck, as
sociate counsel and attorney re-
spectively for the company, and Her
bert Boggs, city attorney, represent
ing the city, remitting tax assess
ments on 81, 43S,024.17, which the city
had claimed was liable to taxation.
This amount was made up of ST.
$4,000 on account policy libility
claims, that is, policies due but NOT
paid at the time the taxation state
ment was prepared, and S62,024.17 for
premiums paid in advance. A small
item of $1,72405 for rents and taxes
due on which the company claimed
exemption was allowed to stand, the
company conceding that it would cost
more to verify than to pay the tax
The figure named by the Newark
Board of Tax Commissioners for 1912
against the Mutual Company was s5,-
791. 62746. The company's return was
50, 1853, ,6OS.29, the difference of $685.
024.17 being made up of the figures
given above.
The case was nearly similar to that
of the Prudential Insurance Com
Dany, which was recently decided in
their favor and against the city. In
the Mutual case, however, it was ad-
mitted by Mr.. Boggs, representing
the city. that the assessment on
policy liability claims and for |
premiums paid in advance were |
placed ON the tax assessment through |
4 misunderstanding of the local tax
board, as there was no contention |
that the item was a reserve fund or |
deferred dividend fund as had been
he case with the $29.342, 64721 which
he Prudential company appealed |
rom and won.
Next the Prudential case that had |
1een decided in their favor was
aiken up, and it took but few min
)tes for Major Carl Lentz, represent
ng the company. and Mr.. Boggs. In
his case it was decided that the as
of s29, ,S42, 64721 for Inability
IN policies and of 759,633.15, "for
premiums paid in advance, includ-
ng surrender value of policies SO ap-
olied," should be RENTED, and the
ak board ordered that $50, 102, $50. SO
be stricken from the tax rolls
An item of $3.50, ,711.97 "unearned in
crest and rent in advance" brought |
Ip an argument between Mr.. Lentz |
md Mr.. Boggs, the former holding
t to be a liability, while the city at
orney held it to be an asset.
AS the State Board of Taxation had
Iecided against the Prudential in this
Instance, the county board took the
natter under advisement.
There was some delay while maps
md data were being arranged in the
.ases where the Prudential has ap-
,ealed against the assessments made
" the city on land owned by the
in the centre of the city.
In this appeal ten pieces of prop
.rty on Broad street and one on
Market street are involved, in which
he Prudential asks a decrease of
]. .243,95O from the assessment figures
Is set by the city.
When this hearing started the Mo-
ion Courtroom was well filled. Pres
dent John L. Carroll of the City
3oard of Tax Commissioners and the
,ther members of the board being
present, as well as a number of ex-
,erts, who will be called on TO testify
" both sides. Edward d. Duffield,
olicitor- general of the Prudential
took charge of the hearing
ehen the appeal case on land values
vas taken up.
Archibald M. Woodruff was the first
witness called. but his testimony had
My to do with the Identification of
huge map showing the property in
question
True Valuation Sought.
President John l.. Carroll, Of the
;ity Board OF Tax Revision and AS
|