The Delta independent., 1921-09-23
HUTCHINSON TAX MATTER
GIVEN WRONG INTERPRETATION

western slope papers in regard to
the case of James F. Hutchinson VS..
Nj. ID. Herrick, as county treasurer of
Gunnison county and the sheriff and
county assessor of Gunnison county,
to restrain the collection of certain
! taxes attempted to be imposed by the
| taxing officials of Gunnison county.
The facts of this case are that Mr.
Hutchinson owns herd of cattle that
has been assessed in Delta county
each year and then assessed for a
second time in Gunnison county for
these same years, thus making double
taxation on the same property. The
situation is one that not alone con-
Germs Mr. Hutchinson but a large
number OF owners of cattle and sheep
that happen to range in two counties
during the same season.
By the laws of this state personal
1 property is required to be assessed
in the county in which it may be
situated on April 1 of each year.
With respect to livestock on the
range, however, an attempt was made
in 1902 by our State Legislature to
provide for the taxation of cattle,
l Z
kept part of the year in one county
and part of the year in another coun-
ty, in each county where such cattle
might be during any time of the year,
and that said cattle might be as
sessed as of any date between jan
uary l and December 81. In the year
1911 an amendment to this act was
passed by the Legislature, chapter
191, which provided that cattle, sheep
or horses that range or are kept or
herded in one county a part of the
| year and in another county the re-
manning part of the year, shall be
assessed and taxed in either of said
counties, and such taxes shall be di-
vided between said counties in pro-
portion to that part of the year the
! stock remained in each county, and
that the assessors of such counties
might meet and agree upon the di-
vision of the assessment of such stock
based as near as may be upon the
average time such stock shall range
in either of such counties.
In the year 1915, in the case of The
Carbon County Sheep and Cattle Com
of Routt County, 60 Colo, 224, the
supreme court held that the act of
1902 was unconstitutional in view of
its discriminatory character BY its
terms no other character of personal
property that is part of the year in
one county and part of the year in
another county is subject to taxation
in two counties, and by the terms of
the statute not even all kinds of live
stock are subject to taxation in two
or more counties. The man who owns
horses, cattle or sheep is subject to
double taxation, or what in practical
erect amounts to double taxation. On
the contrary. the owner of mules,
goats, burros and hogs can move
them from one county to another
| without being subjected to a double
taxation.
The statute as it stands further
provides that if cattle shall be
brought in to the state between April
and September l of each year. it
shall be subject to taxation for the
year in which it is brought in to the
state. but all stock brought in be-
continuously in said county to which
it is taken for more than one year.
shall be exempt from taxation for the
calendar year in which it is so
brought in to the state, thus making
a discrimination in favor of stock
shipped in to the state after April l
| as against stock that is in the state
on April l. If a man keeps his cattle
in a pasture in one county part OF
the year and in pasture in another
county the remainder of the year,
| they are not subject to taxation in
both counties, but only in the county
in which they may be on April l. If
dairy stock is sold and moved from
one county to another county of the
state and is not turned on the range
it cannot be assessed save in the
county in which it may be on April 1.
All of the defects that were present
in the 1902 statute, which our court
declared unconstitutional. have been
repeated in the 1911 amendment with
much more glaring instances of in
Justice added.
One might ask why this mix-up on
the part of our Legislature occurred.
1t will be remembered that some six
or seven years ago our supreme court
was badly behind in its work and
cases were pending four or five years
before a decision was reached by the
supreme court. When the Legisla-
ture in 1911 amended the 1902 statute
it was unaware that case was then
pending before the supreme court in
which the constitutionaIity Of the
statute was attacked, and hence it