The New York herald., 1922-04-02
Warns Of Attack on
Tax Exemption Law

the purpose OF taxation Is that each clas-
silica ticn must contain all the property
which Is in the same class, and that Is
largely determined by It's use. but in this
case the classification is based upon
construction. within q limited period. for
use for dwelling purposes while all
other buildings used for such purposes
are not within the class.
I'm the statute under consideration
the exemption Is based upon the use u
which the exempted property is to be
put, namely. for dwelling purposes, and
when the Legislature undertakes to fix
classification based upon use OF the
exempted property II must include all
property put to the same use. The rea-
son stated in the preamble that the OBJ
ject OF the act was to induce the invest
ment OF funds In the building OF dwell
ing houses does not relate to the use
but rather to the status OF the person
making the investment, and clearly clus-
sified exemption based upon the status
of the owner has no constitutional au-
thority.
THE respondent, however. argued that
the Legislature has the right not only to
classify. but to subclasslfy the objects
Of property to be exempted from taxa
ton. This we think was clearly disap-
proved In Central Railroad Company vs.
State Board Of Taxation. Supra. For
In that case 1t was argued in support or
the statute that the original act not
only segregated for taxation property
used for railroad or canal purposes, but
after doing so distributed it into arbi-
trary parts or subclasses, and dealt with
these subclasses as independent objects
of taxation
THE respondent also argues that the
essential ground of the classification Is
that the Legislature believed that an
exemption of all dwellings erected with
in the two years from October !, 1920
would relieve a pressing emergency. But
4 pressing emergency Is no ground for
violation of constitutional provision.
otherwise the Legislature might con-
stantly violate the constitution upon the
ground Of some emergency, as an exer-
else OF police power. but the exercise Of
such power if 1t exists, must be within
the constitutional limit. The respondent
also relies upon the preamble to the act
as indicating what the Legislature in
tended, but the intent of the Legislature
must be drawn from the statute, and
reference Is only made to the preamble
where the intent Is doubtful or ambigu-
Gus, but no such reference Is necessary
to interpret this statute, and the pre-
amble is nothing more than an argu-
ment In favor of the adoption OF the
act, and not of its constitutionality.
1--WE are Of opinion that when the
Legislature undertakes to classify prop
erty for the purpose Of exemption from
the payment of taxes 1t must include in
that classification all property of like
character which is subject to the same
use, and that a classification which in
cludes only improvements made to real
estate created within a limited period.
leaving all other property OF like char
acter and for the same use subject to
taxation, Is illusory and arbitrary 1t
is special in It's chara cter and does not
impose taxes under general laws. and
by uniform rules. according to its true
value. as required by the constitution
Our conclusion is that the act is In vio-
lation OF the constitutional provision re-
Ia ting to the assessment OF taxes. and
also contrary to its provision relating
to special acts, and therefore the relator
is entitled to his writ commanding the
Essex County Board of Taxation to add
to the rateables of that county all prop
crty which 1t is attempted to be ex-
cmpted from taxation by the law under
consideration"