The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1919-03-19
new INDIANA
ASSESSMENT
ACT FLAYED
Indianapolis Attorney Ques-
tons Recently Enacted Tax
Reform Law.

Elias d. Salisbury, an indianapolis
attorney, has raised question regard
Ing the tax reform law enacted by the
recent legislature. under which the
state board Is proceeding TO assess
all property at it's actual value. Sails
bury says the legislature in passing
the new act and In repeating all for.
mer tax measures, failed to retain
5 the Saving clause" without which
doubt arises whether there can be any
assessment OF property this year. He
cites authorities to sustain his posi-
ton.
: John l.. Rupe, Richmond attorney
said Wednesday that Salisbury point
might be plausible" although he hat
not thoroughly examined the law yet.
p Eliminated by House.
. Salisbury says the Saving clause
was in Section 336 of the original
bill and that It was eliminated by the
house and not put back by the senate
. In his statement on the subject he
said:
Several questions now arise, tn
view OF certain provisions in the act,
and by reason OF striking out parts
OF the original bill or amending the
bill as introduced. Some of the most
serious of these questions are:
Il. The General Assembly having
enacted this Tax Reform Law and
q it being approved on March 10, 1919,
repeating all former laws, and strik-
ing out the saving clause. can there
! be any assessment of property under
the law as II now stands, before March
!. 1920?
"2 What is the effect OF the spe-
cific provision Of Sec. 335 of the act,
releasing all liens for taxes accruing
ION or before March /, 1919. on the first
. Monday OF May. 1920?
. ''3. Has the legislature granted a
remission of sins for all tar dodgers
who have failed to give in their prop
erty for taxation in former years?
Under the specific wording of the
provisos to Secs. 255 and 81. as or.
iginaiy introduced. no assessments
for omitted property were to be made
or added for any year prio- to Jan.
/, 1919 These specific provisions
were stricken out OF the bill by adopt
ing the house committees report. BY
this same report. however, Sec. 1886 Of
the original bill, or the saving clause,
was also stricken out.
Leaves serious QueSt'oh.
with the saving clause out OF the
act as passed and approved. and with
general repeating clause repeating
all laws and parts in conflict with the
provisions of this act 1t leaves a very
serious question whether or not the
sins Of all tax dodgers have not been
affected just as effectively as IL the
specific provlsos to Secs. 255 and 317
and the saving clause as originally In
the bill, had been retained. Striking
out. these provisions, however, appears
to have more far-rcaching effect. AS
the law now stands, the state is ap-
parently precluded. not only from col
lecting any omitted taxes, but from
collecting any taxes for the year 1919.
These matters are not saved by the
general saving clause in Sec. 248
Burns, 1914, as that clause. as said by
our Supreme Court, only relates to
penalties, forfeitures and kindred liza
bilities,' and prior to the time that the
assessment is made and placed on
the duplicate, the claim Of the state
exists only in the right to tax
IF the tax reform law, therefore,
is a valid law, its effects are apparent.
ly most far.reaching and either the
courts must be called upon to deter
mine Just how far the people have
been relieved from taxation, or the
General Assembly be recorvened to
out these complications"