Evening star., 1931-12-17

10,
levies and SO forth, in each of the %
cities used in the comparison With
reference TO the ratio of assessed yalu-
ationS to the actual value OF property
the committee said this information
gathered from the various sources men,
toned was supplemented by the knoWl-
edge Of its special investigator, George
Lord, Of assessment conditions in sew
eral cities gained by previous inyesti-
cation.
The Bureau OF Efficiency procured its
information from personal visits to and
investigation of the official records In
the IA cities used in the comparative
studies, taking the assessed value as
shown by official records of each. city,
and adjusting these values by the per
capita method to obtain a common
basis for comparison with Washington.
Washingtons assessed valuation per
capita was, therefore. applied to the
population Of each city 10 determine It's
adjusted assessed valuation. Then. by
dividing the actual tax levy by the ad
luSted assessed valuation, the adjusted
tax rate was established. This method,
the bureau found, met the objection
often raised to the method used by the
Mapes Committee-that consideration IS
not given to varying price levels in the
several cities.
Furthermore, the Efficiency Bureau
believes it would be "manifestly unfair"
to compare the tax revenues in Wash
ington with thosd In other cities with
out taking into consideration the large
property holdings Of the Federal Gov
ernment, which are exempt from
taxation.
Two Computations Made.
ITO establish comparable tax data
for Washington" the bureau said 1T
Is necessary to determine and include
the amount the Federal Government
would pay in taxes to the District Of
Columbia on its property holdings used
tor the transaction Of the NatiCn busi-
ness If it were subject TO tax. There
fore two computations Of adjusted as
sessed valuations and tax rates were
made for Washington. the first on the
basis Of WaShingtons assessed Valua-
tions per capita, exclusive of all Federal
property holdings, and second, on the
one has as high an assessed valuation
per capita, including the property hold
lngs of the Federal Government other
than park property and property used
for the exclusive benefit Of the District
government"
In the "A cities which the bureau
compared with Washington. net Cne of
them has as low an actual tax rate on
real property as Washington, and not
one has as high an assessed valuation
per capita, either for real or personal
property, as Washington. Therefore,
although Washington has a lower tax
rate than any of these cities. when the
tax rates on real property are adjusted
on the basis of WaShingtonS assessed
valuation per capita, Federal property
holdings being included as the Eff
cheney Bureau declares they should be,
WaShlngtonS tax rate is SIT as c~rn
pared TO the average Of Sl729 for the
other IA cities. 1t also is emphasized
that whenever the comparative assess
ments and tax burdens are thoroughly
and scientifically tested. the District
assessment is near or at the top Of the
list in proximity to true valuation and
its tax burden is found to be adequate
Or excessive.
Not Same as Business Buildings.
The Mapes committee. in opposing
the inclusion of Federal business prop
erty in computing the tax burden Of the
District, declared that the Federal
buildings would be virtually useless to
any one but the Government. having
only scrap value. The committee
also declared that these buildings we're
not erected by any one engaged in bust
ness for its profit and cannot be con-
sidered in the same class with struc-
lures Of ordinary business enterprises.
One OF the chief arguments made
for increased Federal contributions to-
ward the expenses OF the District of
Columbia said the committee, lis that
the District has suffered loss of taxes
because Of the exemption of Federal
properties from taxation. In estimating
the loss CT revenue. it has been the
fashion to treat the Federal properties
as If they were always on the assess
ment rolls of the District. This, the
committee thinks, is a mistake The |
only possible loss of revenue would be |
the revenue derived from the taxation
of the land and Improvements thereon |