The Fargo forum and daily republican., 1916-10-18
QUESTION
RIGHT TO
DECREASE
New Phase of Board of
Equalization Action
Found in Statute

Bismarck, n. D., Oct. 1S.-Did the
state board Of equalization in making
it's recent fiat 10 per cent reduction in
the valuation Of farm lands. railways
and town and city lots exceed it's
authority?
The state tax commission holds that
it did, and to sustain it's contention it
cites paragraph 5 of section 2141 of
the compiled laws of 1913, which, re-
ferring to the duties Of the state board
Of equalization, reads as follows:
They shall not reduce the aggre-
gate value of all the property Of
the state as returned by the sew
eral county auditors more than
1 percentum on the whole
valuation thereof.
Was More Than I Per Cent.
There is no question that the recent
10 per cent cut on three Of the states
most important classes Of property
did exceed a reduction of 1 per cent
upon the aggregate value Of all the
property of the state as returned by
the several county auditors. The re-
duction on farm lands totaled $21,-
100000; on railways, $5,000,000, and on
town and city lots $1,500,000, a grand
total reduction of $27,500,000 on the
whole assessed valuation of approx
to be literally enforced, the tax COM
mission claims that the total reduc-
tiCn which the board is authorized to
make cannot upon this approximate
whole valuation exceed $3,540,000
Statute Confusing.
The tax commission has not to date
formally called the attention of the
board of equalization to its alleged
nj h0JUpUnp hn
pending action was discussed yester-
day by State Auditor Carl O. Jorgen-
son, secretary Of the board, Governor
Hanna, the chairman and Commits
siorer r. F. Flint. They state that
their action was taken under the
authority conveyed in subdivision
of section 2141 of the compiled acts Of
1918, Immediately preceding subdivi-
sion 5, above quoted. Subdivision
provides
They shall deduct from the ag-
gregate valuation of all the prop
erty of every county in the state
which they believe to be valued
above it's true and full value such
percentum as will reduce the
same to its true and full value in
money.
Equalization, Not Reduction.
The boards action at its last meet
ing was along the line Of equalization
rather than reduction, its members
claim. There was no fiat reduction
affecting all property. The reduction
made in the three classes named, how
ever, does result in a fiat reduction of
the assessed valuation of the entire
state, somewhat exceeding z per cent.
Flat Raise is Legal.
The supreme court has held that a
fiat increase in the assessed valua-
tion of the state is legal. Such was
its decision in a test case brought to
determine the legality of the 1875 per
cent raise ordered in 1909, in order to
provide more funds. A similar fiat
increase of 20 per cent was ordered in
1915, and it's legality has not been
questioned. The board of equalization
is inclined to believe that any authori-
ty given for a fiat increase in the
valuation of the state must also eX-
tend to permission for a fiat reduc-
tion.
No Action Yet Taken.
The state tax commission had the
matter brought to it's attention only
yesterday, and it has not determined
to date what action will be taken
If any, by that body. 1t is entirely
probable that upon the error, if an
error has been made, being formally
brought to the attention of the state
board of equalization, it may be cor
rected without further process. II
legal action is resorted to, it will be
in the form of petition to the su-
n.