The diamond drill. (Crystal Falls, Iron County, Mich.) 1887-1996, 1913-10-04
WILL PROBABLY TEST RIGHT
Local taxpayers Deny the Right OF the
Tax Commission to Disturbe Equalization

III tue position taken Dy the local
| taxpayers is maintained 10 the point
OF going into the court. as the asocia.
tion claims IL will now do, the question
OF the right the tax commission may
excericise in disregard of equaliza-
tion made by legally constituted
board Of review, when the said equali-
zation does not disturb the figures set
by the commission i'm manner for
hidden by law, will be- settled. In
fact almost all of the legal lights OF
tine community who have expressed an
opinion on the question hold that the
position taken by the commission is
wrong and will not stand up in court.
Briefly stated. the facts are these.
The city assessor made ont the tax
roll of the city of Crystal Falls and
that tax roll was based upon the valua-
ions made by the state tax commission.
Not valuation was lowered or altered
in any way not approved by the com
mission.
The roll went before the board of
review for equalization. The board,
after studying over the roll about u
week, decided that the relative values
of mineral and residence propery were
unequal and TO equalize all pieces of
property they made changes in several
pieces of mineral property, adding
60 each the amount which in their
! judgment was necessary TO make the
values equal.
There was added to the Great West.
ern mine the sum of $50, 600 10 the
Youngstown mine the sum of $7l. 600 /.
10 the Rayenna the sum OF $40, 600 and
to Lot 3 the sum of s42. 600.
The tax commission came to the
county TO hold what was supposed to
be a review, but instead OF review.
Commissioner Horton said upon open
ing the meeting. "The only question
that will be considered here is shall
the original valuation Of the tax COM
mission sand
The representative of the tax payers
association, when the first property
owner was called, arose and requested
ruling from the comm issioner on the
standing of the association at the hear.
ing. Mr.. Conlin explained that the
position taken by the association /,
that the additions were made by the
board of review for the purpose OF
equalizing between the two classes OF
property that the original value as
placed by the tax commission was not
questioned 80 far as that value steol
alone or in comparison with like pro
perty but as compared with other pro.
perty the valuation was unjust and
the board of review, for that reason,
added sufficient in each case SO that
| just asse ssment might be arrived al
, The commissioner stated that the com.
! mission could not consider any argu,
ment along any other lins than thai
OF IA scientific valuation of the i'm.
mediate property under consideration
that in order TO arrive at any such
finding as the association sought
| general review must be held aud to dc
that there was not sufficient authorit,
under the notice.
The association thereupon objected
} to any review that did not take int
consideration the relative values of tn,
! different kinds Of property and thu
right of the commission TO disturbt
) the findings OF legally constituted
body that had made an investigation
, and had arrived at conclusion.
, AS each property owner was heard
objection was made by the association
aud 1t is very probable that the matte
will be heard from later.
The local association has the taxes
OF 1912 up before the council now ant
II is conceded on all sides that Mr.
Abbott has the municipality beater
and will certainly knock out the entIr,
tax il compromise is not made. IN
fact so generally is the thing recogniz
ed that oonIpromise IS seriously con
templated by the council. fearing thai
the entire tax will be lost II allowed
20 20 into court.
Mr.. Abbott's entire case is made
upon the action Of tae tax commits
sion which muddled up the taxes last
year and are In fair way to do the
same thing this year and next year
until they stop their practice of re-
viewing only one class Of propery at a
time.
-