Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-08-06
The Assessment Basis.

without reference to other matters IN
yolved In his statement laid before the
House District subcommittee now inves-
tisating the taxation and assessment
methods in vogue In the District, the op-
servations of Mr.. Kalbfus of the Doard
of assessors respecting the legal basis
for the two-thirds assessment here are
OF prime Importance and contribute val
uably to IT, inquiry now under way
When Asse~a4' Richards was on the
stand the question was asked him as 10
his view OF the law with regard TO the
two-thirds assessment system and MS
answer was not as specific or comprehen-
Sive as was to be desired, assuming tnat
the inquiriers were really seeking ln1or-
nation and We're not trying TO emoarrass
the witness or prejudice subsequent con-
eressional opinion. Mr.. Kalbfus' state
ment. prepared evidently with care ana
after q research of the statutes ana Jul
dfcial decisions leaves no doubt as to the
legality of this practice. even as there Is
no question after a scrutiny of the taxa
ton and assessment statistics of this ana
other cities as TO its fairness and suff-
cheney.
MIR Kalbfus points out first that the
two-thirds assessment basis has been
maintained for many years in this DIS
trict Under the act of March ., 49,
Congress indicated. though it did not oil
rectly require. that real estate in the
District should he assessed a the true
value of the land and the improvements.
III came however. to be the custom, IN
common with that followed in many
other cities to assess ut a point some
what below the true value basis. Mr..
. kalbfus does not point out. but II is
nevertheless q fact, that, inasmuch as
the rate Of taxation vas positively fixed,
if the assessment basis had not gradual
IL shifted downward during the period
preceding the specific definition of a two
thirds minimum. the volume OF tax
money raised by the District would have
been so high that Congress. declining to
observe the letter and the spirit of the
organic act would have reduced its pro-
portioI OF capital maintenance funds and
either left heavy surplus of District tax
money unused or applied such money to
municipal purposes without being bal
anced by federal money as the law con-
tcmpIated. In point of fact. such sur
plus or District tax money did accumu-
late through the raising of more local
funds than Congress would appropriate
under the organic act, and this surplus
proved so tempting to Congress that II
was finally appropriated. in fragrant vio-
iation of the organic act. as the Districts
ineGuitable share OF the cost of entertain
ing a Grand Army encampment and also
its share of the governments gross blum
ders and inattention in the construc-
ton OF the aqueduct tunnel.
But in 1902, whatever may have been
the reasons for the two-thirds practice
prior to that time, Congress specifically
declared that thereafter District real es-
tate subject to taxation should be as
sessed at not less than two-thirds of its
true value. Mr.. Kalbfus points out in
his statement. with clear reasoning, that
this enactment unquestionably meant
that the assessment might be as low as
two-thirds and that it did not mean that
the assessment should be at true valua-
ton. No one can logically contend that
Congress designed to fix the full-value
principle in the District, else. when it
was legislating with care upon this sub
ject. il would have specifically so stated
instead of using language which unde-
niably permitted if it did not direct the
continuance of the two-thirdS practice.
Thus the act of 1902 may be accepted as
:: definite statute, and il is idle to con-
tend that it should be interpreted other
wise than as a full justification of the
practice Of District assessors in assessing
for taxation purposes local real estate at
tNu-thirds of the true value.
Having determined that two-thirds
should be the minimum of taxation basis,
Congress should not expect the District
assessors to shift their basis of taxation
tom year to year, or from case to case.
To do 50 would have been to throw the
taxation processes in the District into a
chaotic tumble. There may have been
inequties in the assessments and some
determinations in individual cases, pos
slbly favoritism. perhaps even culpable
departures from the strict rules of equity.
subjecting the assessment boards to criti-
Cism. That is a matter OF particular de
termination. But there is no ground for
.riticising the District assessors for hay
ing followed in their general determina-
lion of taxable values the fixed custom of
The community in compliance. during
later years. with the permissive IL not
directive enactment Of Congress-
>-SSe->---