The Birmingham age-herald., 1921-06-17
BOOKS AND PAPERS OF TAXPAYERS OPEN ID TAX COMMISSION
Cannot Require the Corpora tlons to Bring Books and Papers to Capitol for,
 Examination
By FRED IT. GoRMI.rY Montgomery Bureau, The AKe-Herald 221-e First National Bank Buiidln0


 Montgomery, June 1s.- Especial )- Books and papers of all taxpayers or Alabama must be made available to the state tax commission when 1t desires to obtain a basis on which to make the assessments for taxation under the decision of the supreme court Thursday in the case of the state tax commission versus the Ten nessee Coal, Iron and Railroad com pahy' from the Jefferson circuit court. The decision contains the most thorough definition of the authoritv or the state tax commission in the flxing of assessments that has bean made since the legislature of 1919 enacted the new revenue law
 The final effect of tho courts de- cision IS that the state tax commits sion may proceed with It's work of reassessing the property of between oO and 75 of tho states largest cor porations and. in reaching a basis tor the assessment, may use the serv- ices Of expert accountants in deter mining what property the corpora tons have in Alabama and the cor corporations must produce their looks and pepers to the cobbission Tor such examinations. Every ma terial point in the controversy was won by the state tax commisslon. The one restriction. under the opin- ion of the court is that the books and papers must be examined In the county where the offices of the cor porations are maintained. The tax commission is deprived of only one right 1t claimed, the right to require the corporations to bring their books and papers to the capitol for exam ination.
 Points of Attack
 Various points of attack were raised by the Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad company in the test case which construed the law for all oth- CTS involved in the controversy, but the chief one was that the tax com mission had no right to make the ex- animation. All members of the court agreed that the tax commission had the right. but Associate Justices Say re and Gardner contended that the commission could not exedcise the right in the case at issue because there was no valid controversy They c@htended that the commission could rot set aside assessments and proceed to revalue property because sub-di vision M of section 13S which granted the right 10 revaIue proper ~ by the tax commission made no provision for notice, a right guaran- teed by the constitution and that. therefore. sub division M" was un- constitutional and void.
 But the other members Of the court dissented from the view expressed by MT. Justices Sayre and Gardner and held that the revenue act of 19f9. which was intended as complete act regarding state revenue, did not repeal section 222s of the code of 1907 which provides expressly for the notice and that section 222s would continue to be operative in connection with the present revenue law.
 Dissenting Opinion
 MT. Justice Gardner prepared a long opinion in support of the views of himself and Mir. Justice Sayre and the other members of the court, Chief Justice Anderson and Associate Jus tices Mcclellan. Somerville. Thomas and Miller agreed with him except in the holding that sub division ''M of section 13S was invalid because no notice was provided as required by the constitution. Mr. Chief Jus tice Anderson prepared an opinion for the majority on this point which held that section 222s of the code was not repealed by the revenue act of 1919 and that. therefore, ample provision was made by law for the notice required by the constitution. All members of the court concurred in this opinion except MT. Justices Sayre and Gardner. who dissented.