Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1921-10-09

III lAlS oCllOii. UIOuSuI dOOuI Ut d
prepared resolution. the board granted
the appeal of the Butte & Superior
Mining company from the action of the
Silver Bow county board of equaliza-
ton in placing upon the assessment
rolls the sum of S1,1S6,245.S5 as net
proceeds of the Butte & Superior Min
ing company, which amount had been
deducted the year previous from the
net proceeds of the same company up
on the grounds that it represented re-
ceipts upon ore which had been mined
by the company in number of years
past. but which it had finally been de-
termined was the property of the
Clark Montana Realty company and
the Elm Orlu Mining company. and for
which the Butte & Superior had made
restitution to the latter concerns.
Assess Two to, Make One Pay.
At the same time. to protect the
state in the loss of taxes upon this
deduction, the state board ordered the
assessor of Silver Bow county to as
sess the Clark Montana Realty com
pany for net proceeds in the sum of
S2,1OO.OOO. this being the sum it has
ascertained was received by it from
the Butte & Superior. for the disputed
ore.
Governor Dixon urged the placing of
the assessment upon the Clark Mon
tana Realty company, but Attorney
General W. D. Rankin opposed it up
on the ground that the Clark company
had not been given. chance to be
heard in the matter Mr.. Rankin said
that the law appeared so clear to the
board at the hearing held in the appeal
of the Butte & Superior Mining com
pany that Judge Sanner. who appeared
on that day for the Clark interests.
was told by members of the board that
it was not necessary for him to bring
his witnesses to Helena. Mr.. Rankin
urged upon the board that the only
fair way to handle the matter would
be to set the matter down for hear
ing. so that witnesses could be heard
for the Clark side. A motion was made
to that effect by the attorney general
that the appeal of the Butte & Supe-
rior Mining company be granted. This
motion carried three to one. with the
attorney general voting against it. The
motion to assess the amount to the
Clark Montana Realty company result
ed in the same vote.
Can't Collect, Says Sanner.
The state has a slim chance to recov-
er the amount Of taxes lost by the de-
duction given the Butte & Superior
Mining company is the opinion given
openly TO the board of equalization at
the time of the hearing by the attorney
general and this same opinion is held
by attorneys who are familiar with
the case.
Judge Sydney Sanner of Butte. rep
resenting the Clark Montana Realty
declared before the board at
The former hearing that it was his opin-
ion the state could not collect l cent
from the Clark interests in the event
the board saw fit to attempt to pass
the tax on to the Clark Montana Real
ty company. instead of letting it remain
with the Butte and Superior company.
Paid on Lost Ore 10 Years.
The history of the case as disclosed
in the papers filed in the appeals and
by arguments of counsel for both com
oanies shows that during period of 10
years the Butte and Superior Mining
paid tax to the state and
county at each taxpaying period on the
let proceeds of ores mined from ground
as the result of lawsuit. During the
lO-year period. a lawsuit was COM
nenced by the Clark interests and went
10 the courts, where several phases of
The controversy were determined. The |
case, however, was not finally deter |
mined in court. but was settled by an
agreement made between the Butte and
Superior Mining company and the !!
ark-Montana Realty company.
The controversy involved other prop |
.rty than the ore mined by the Butte |
Ind Superior and upon which the net
tax was paid. The other prop |
srty in controversy was also settled |
lp in the final settlement invoking the |
re mined. In the settlement the Butte
ind Superior Mining company paid ST.
10000 to, the Clark Montana Realty
company for the ore taken out Of the |
disputed territory.
Following this settlement, the Butte
ind Superior Mining company asked !
he Silver Bow county board Of equal
zation for a deduction on its 1920 net
proceeds assessment on ore purchased.
representing that the payment to the
Clark interests in the lawsuit settle
nent was the purchase Of ore. The
county board of equalization in 1921 re-
assessed the amount to the Butte and
Superior Mining company as net
assessment
At the hearing on the appeal before
he state board it was agreed by coun-
Iel for bQth companies. the attorney
-