The Arvada enterprise., 1913-11-20
Attorney Vale Ex-
plains Tax Situation
Arvada Enterprise-Nov 18.
Arvada, Nov II, 1913
STATE TAX COMMISSION
VS., RHEA.

Arvada, Nov IL, 1918.
STATE TAX COMMISSION
VS.. RHEA.
To the Editor Of the Arvada
Enterprise,
Arvada, Colorado.
Dear Sir:
The Tax Case" against Assess
or Rhea will probably be dismiss
ed or at all events allowed to
rest pending the decision in the
Pitcher Case" but as a number of
citizens of the County have asked
me about it, deem it proper to
ask you to give publicity to this
statement in order that the tax
situation may be generally under
stood.
The law not only at the present
time but heretofore has provided
that all property should be assess
ed at its full cash value o.. 1902,
p. 43, Section q but for many
years a practice has grown up a
mong assessors of assessing at
from one-ffth to one-third of the
actual value. The revenues of
the State with certain exceptions
not necessary to here enumerate)
are collected through the levy of
taxes in the several counties. The
amount which may be levied for
state purposes is fixed by the
State Board Of Equalization, but is
limited to four mills on the dol
lar of assessed valuation. L. 'O2,
p. Ill, Sec, 124, R. S. Colo. 1908,
Sec. 567D. The amount of Coun
ty revenue which may be neces.
sary for each year is determined
by the County Commissioners be-
fore the beginning of the year and
they levy such tax upon the as
sessed valuation as will be suffi-
cient to produce this revenue plus
the amount fixed for the County
by the State Board of Equaiza-
ton for State purposes. 1t will
therefore be clear that so far as
County revenues are concerned it
makes no difference whether the
assessed valuation is on one
third basis or on a full cash value
basis, because the Commissioners
can make the levy fit the assess.
ment, but it does make difference
with regard to the State revenues
because the Commissioners cannot
change the per centage of levy as
fixed by the State Board of Equal
ization. A clear understanding
Of this point is necessary to any
consideration of the present "tax
tangle." Thus let us suppose, to
take an example in round num-
bers, that the State Board OF
Equalization fixes levy for state
purposes at two mills per dollar
of assessed valuation, and that a
given county finds that it will re
quire ten thousand dollars to con
duct its business for the ensuing
year. Then let lis also suppose
that the assessed valuation of the
County has been fixed by the as
SCISSOR at one million dollars, and
that this represents a full cash
value. The County Commission
ers would levy ten mills to raise
their ten thousand dollars and
they would add to this ten mills
the two mills to raise the state
revenue, making the total levy
twelve mills. Suppose on the
other hand that the assessed valu-
alton is on one-third basis, viz.
1898, ,33300. The County Com
missioners then provide for their
ten thousand dollars by levy of
3313 mills to which they add the
two mills for state purposes, max
ing the total levy 35K, mills. In
this second case the County re-
ceives the same amount of money
and the tax payer pays the same
amount for County purposes, as
in the first case, but the state re
ceives less and the tax payer pays
less for state purposes.
1t has heretofore been, and per-
haps still is, the function of the
State Board of Equalization to
"equalize" valuations in different
counties to the end that the bur
den Of the state tax shall fall
equally upon citizens Of different
counties and that railroads and
similar corporations doing 'busi-
ness in different counties shall
share equally the burden of coun.
ty taxes in different counties.
The legislature Of 1911 credited
new body known as the Colorado
Tax Commission comforting upon
il very broad powers with respect