The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1920-04-02

state board of tax commissioners was
Friday considering the Wayne county
situation, but members said they were
not ready to make a report
Who is responsible for the ITO Der
cent increases in Richmond personal
property tax assessments, of last
spring, payable this year, and for cor
respondingly heavy increases through
out all of Wayne county?
Taxpayers of Richmond, when they
went to pay their first installment
this spring, were confronted by as
sessments placing their personal prop
erty at more than twice the figure 1t
which they had originally given it in
for assessment in March, 1919. They
were confronted, moreover, by the ne
cesslty of paying taxes according to
| the increase.
County officials were interviewed.
and they said that the heavy in
crease was caused first by a so per
cent flat increase placed on personal
property by the county board of tax
review.
Then State Board Had Inning
Next, they said, the state board of
review tackled on 40 per cent more, in
spite Of protests by county officials
that the county already had all it
could stand.
When Chairman Fred Sims, of the
state tax board, was interviewed
Thursday, at Indianapolis, however,
he was astounded to hear that
Wayne county taxpayers were paying
| on ITO per cent more than the original
valuations on personals
NO such rises were authorized by
| the state board" said Mr. Sims.
Two Increases Duplicated
When shown that the county board
| had already increased valuations so
! per cent, Mr.. Sims said that the state
| boards increases of 40 per cent had
been meant as the final ruling and
! final increase on the original valua-
ton.
The state board knew nothing of the
county boards original action on per-
sonals, he said, and was inclined to
blame the county board for "unau-
| thorized' rises, which had caused the
trouble, he said.
When Brooks was informed Of Mr..
Sims statement, he said the state
board had every opportunity Of know
ing that the county board had ordered
the increases.
"The county boards increases were
|
felt sure was coming from the state
board II they were not ordered at
home" said Brooks. "They were not
specifically authorized by the state
board, but the county board of review
has the power to make such increases
as 1t deems proper"
Were Told Many Times.
Brooks said the county board spe-
c1fcally told the state board, through
the persons who represented the for
mer last summer, that in view of the
increases ordered by the county board,
1t felt the county was already heavily
enough taxed.
He instanced numerous times when
the agents of the state board of review
had been told by himself or other
county officers, of the rises.
1T is just a case where the state
officials want to pass the buck" he
said.
Beside this, said Brooks, the auditor
of state had been given his copy of
both abstracts. the one made out in
July, with the county boards addi-
; tions. and the one completed in De-
cember, with the state boards final
increases.
Should Have Found Error.
Had their been an error. from the
state point of view, the auditor should
have found it at this time and reported
to the county. Brooks said.
In Richmond, the county boards in
crease was so per cent and the state
board piled another 40 per cent on
I top. making 110 per cent in all. on
the original assessments as turned in
by the assessors.
The increases made by the local
board varied from 10 per cent to 20
Der cent in the county, and another
batch of raises were placed on top of
: these by the state board.
! One hundred and twenty-one per
cent was the rise in Pershing corpor-
f alton and Wayne township; the others
were less severe.
The highest increases made in real
: estate were 25 per cent, in Dalton
! township, and nowhere did the county
= board and the state board duplicate in-
= creases in the real estate, said