The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1914-07-23
CITY'S STAND UPHELD.

Last year tn e G. Reiss Coal Company
appeared before the Board OF Equaliza-
tion and demanded that their coal
handling apparatus at the upper dock,
valued at $50, 500 be assessed as person
atty. The reason was that this would
furnish large offset against income
taxes. The Boa I'd, however, left the
property in the rolls as Improvements
upon real estate. The company took
the matter to circuit court and the
court decided in favor of the city,
due the company said to the i'm perfect
record of proceedings, kept by the city
clerk. This year the company appear
ed again and made complete record,
putting in evidence of contract with
the 500 Line whereby the company
retains ownership of these rigs and
may remove the same. The Identical
situation at Sheboygan was pending
before the Tax Commission at Mad
son and the decision was eagerly
awaited here. The Board adjourned
sine die Thursday after denying the
pany's request on ADVICE of the city
attorney. Saturday came the Commits
sion's decisions upholding the city's ac-
tion. The matter will doubtless again
90 to court, this time upon complete
record.
The exact point in issue is this. A
state law reads: personal property
shall include buildings on leased lands
unless such buildings have been asses
sed with the land as improvements" !"
The Company says that when buildings
are owned and may be removed by a
lessee they are personally and must be
assessed to the owner as such. The ci-
ty says that the above law gives the ci-
ty the option OF classifying such build
ings as either realty or personally.
The Following is an excerpt from the
decision in the Sheboygan case which
is similar to the Manitowoc question:
1T is conceded that if such machin-
cry were placed upon the dock in ques-
tion by the owner of the land so that
the title TO both would be vested in the
same person, it would become "A fixture
attached to the land and might proper
ly be assessed in connection Herewith
as real estate. 1t is claimed however,
that inasmuch as the superstructure in
question is owned by the tenant and
the lease OF the land authorizes the coal
Company to remove The same, that it
should be assessed as personal property
under sections Io36 ., 80 st;.sutes.
The practical question therefore is
whether such superstructure should be
erty.
The purpose and effect of assessing
the superstructure in question as per-
sonal property is TO give the owner
thereof right to use the taxes paid
thereon as an offset against its income
tax. This operates as an advantage to
the coal company and as loss OF rev.
enue TO the public. While this circum-
stance should not control the classica-
tion of property as real or personal, it
may be taken into account in cases of
dou ubtful construction. AS before stat
ed, section 1896 plainly implies that
under some circumstances buildings
upon leased lands may be assessed as
improvements to the real estate. In
determining what test is to be applied
in such cases, the necessities OF admin.
istration and the whole scheme of our
tax laws should be considered.
The law requires the assessor to
view real estate before assessing it
and 10 include in the valuation, not on
ly the land itself but all buildings, fix
lures, improvements, rights and privi-
leges appertaining thereto. The law
nowhere in express terms requires the
assessor to investigate contract rela-
tions between the owner of property
and those in possession thereof"