Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1922-09-11
SAYS PRESENT
TAX EXEMPTION
PLAINS AWRY
Converse Will Ask Changes
to Weed Out Alleged
Inequalities.

BISMARCK, N. d., Sept. ll.-IneQual-
tiles in taxation resulting from exemp-.
ton features of tax laws of recent
years will be presented to the leygisla-
turA at it's next session. and if the leg
islature goes into the tax questions to
be presented in careful study taxation
will constitute, one of the sessions ma.
jor works. = I,
Analysis of returns to the state.
board of equalization by board mem
bers and the State tax commissioner,
n the experiences of county auditors
have developed what are held to be
many serious problems in the matter
OF exemptions. Tax Commissioner
Converse is prepared to recommend a
revision of the system of exemptions
at least to the extent of removing the
double exemption system upon five
classes of property,
The law provides that in valuations
of farm machinery, household goods,
wearing apparel. homes occupied by
the owner and tools Of a mechanic a
definite sum Is first exempted and
the remainder Of the valuation is re-
duced so percent to arrive at the tax
able valuation. The result lis a. dis
parity between the. returns on these
classes of property from the various
counties so that 1t is impossible tor
the state board of equalization to cor
rect inequalities, Mr.. Converse de-
clares. .y.l ~, .&.
An.example is seen. in farm machin-
cry, accordlng TO Mr. Converse. AS
returned, by the county. boards in 1922
the valuation of farm machinery was:
Gland Forks county, $56,oVOre Ca;
+ county. $223,O41 Walsh county, $107,-
county. $90.249; Stutsman county,
'$51,S60; Burke county, 1854; Rem
Vac county. $945; McHenry, $500;
Sheridan county. $79,361, The val
uations, while they may be approxi-
mately equal within the counties. are
manifestly unfair as between many
counties, according to Mr.. Converse.
Since the returns are made by county
auditors after reductions are figured.
it is impossible for the state board
of equalization to equalize them, he
says. The deductions mad by the
county auditors entirely n off the
books valuations of some individuals,
and any equalization would be on but
part of the property. There is not
enough time .elapsfng between the re-
cording of assessments and the
spreading of valuations on which the
tax rate is based to permit any other
method than the present being used
by the state board, the tax commits
sioner says. T." =. tp.,
Secs Disproportions. :.
The system. of first exempting $500
worth Ut farm machinery and then
reducing the remainder by SO pei
cent to get the assessed valuation
works, in a manner to a dispro'
portion in the valuations. Tha tota,
valuation of Adams county farm ma:
chinery is $247.361 while the amount
subject to taxation is but $10;123.:{E
Grand Forks county the total vaiua.
ton is. $801,165. while the valuation
tor taxation is $56,501. In McIntost
county the total valuation is $384,1 In
and the assessed valuation $1s,173; II
Mckenzie. total valuation, $477.26O
assessed valuation $S,232.
The state board of equalization, &C
cording to Mr.. Converse, has become
discouraged in attempts to equalize
values on classes of property on Ahicf
double exemptions used. A com
parison between the values returned
to 1t by the auditors after deduction!
are made is misleading. he says, ant
the board must have net valuation,
upon which to base. the tax levy. OPP
position to the present system. als'
was voiced by the county auditors re
Gently. S$ .fA9i
Causes Extra Work.
While the principle of the $xemp
ton system has been Questioned tn.
greatest, objections raised are that /
causes so much additional work tina
he cost of administration of the Law
ia so great as to Offset n benefit
that might be derived from 1T, an,
that it makes for inequalities.