Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-08-23
Valuation FIGURES
FOR |NTER-COUNTY
CONCERNS ACCEPTED
Two Corporations Make No
Protest Against State
Assessments.
(1ribune's Helena Bureau. }

Helena, Aug. 22.-Two corporations
operating inter-county property in
Montana presented the unusual situa-
tion Tuesday of declining TO protest the
figures set by the state board of equal
ization for the assessment of their
holdings. A third corporation, the Pos
tai Telegraph company, failed 10 ap-
pear in answer to the boards notifi-
cation. This company assessment had
been fixed at S127,OOO. an increase of
$4,000 over that of 1921.
1t was natural that neither of the
corporations represented should offer
any objections to the tentative assess
ment figures sent out recently by the
boards tax expert, Nils p Haugen, for
the reason that they reduced the as
sessment of one company about $780,
GOO under that of 1921, and in the case
OF another company, while increasing
the assessment over that of 1921 it was
really lower than the figure the COM
pany had returned for assessment.
Phone Company Satisfied
As representing the Mountain States
Telephone & Telegraph company, J. ~
Whittinghill, state manager. appeared
before the board. He informed the
board he had gone over the figures with
Mr.. Haugen and had decided to offer no
objection, as he believed they were
more nearly on basis with other prop
erty in the state than usual
He said the tentative valuation of
the company's property in Montana as
arrived at by Mr.. Haugen was 81, $780,
517, where's the company's figures had
been placed at $4,463 600. The per-
centage of the company's holdings
which are located in Montana was fig
ured at 1888 per cent.
Mr.. Haugen said he had arrived at
the total, which he believed to be
about right, by capitalizing the net
earnings at 8 per cent, taking the
stock and bond values, and averaging
the .wo. The assessment of the COM
pany in Montana in 1921 was $5,122,-
Attorney W. L. Murphy appeared for
the Missoula Light and Water COM
pany, which distributes electricity in
more than one county. He said the
tentative assessment made by Mr..
Haugen was 81 400, ,262 but that Mr.
Haugen had not taken into considera
tion S4O,637 which the company had
written off because of damage to dam
and other property by floods, and had
said the item of depreciation should
take care of that item of flood loss.
He said the company held this to be
loss above the depreciation reserve and
he believed Mr.. Haugen had accepted
that view. If this $40,637 should be
deducted from the net earnings before
they were capitalized at s per cent
this would leave for assessment val
uation Of 81 100000 As this would be
a smaller valuation than that returned
by the company for assessment, viz,
81 1863, 900, he had not objection to Of
fer.
Power Case Continued
Mr.. Murphy said his company figured
It's plant value on different basis from
that adopted by Mr.. Haugen, it taking
the market value of the property or the
cost less depreciation. He said the
only thing he would ask of the board
was that in making the asse sessment
against it the board take into considera-
lion the fact that the company is being
at full value, whereas the gen
,ral run of property is being assessed
over.
In 1921 the electrical feature of the
S1lssoula plant was assessed by the
state board at 81, ,252, ,41O.
Hearing upon the assessment of the
Montana Power company was to have
,Ome up Tuesday afternoon but under |
agreement between the board and rep
'esentatives Of the company it was
postponed until Wednesday.