The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1934-02-10
S4O,OOO,OOO IN
TAXES MAY BE
PUT ON BOOKS
Decision of Supreme Court
Opens Way for
Restoration.
SIMILAR RULING CITED
Certain Exempt Properties,
Exposed by Times,
Face Change.
BY DANIEL VI. KIDNEY
Times staff Writer

Restoration of s4O.0OO,OOO to the
the tax duplicate in Indianapolis
alone may be made possible by a
new weapon in the hands Of the
state tax board by the supreme
court.
The weapon is a court decision
which, in an inverse manner, an
swers the questions the tax COM
missioners put to Attorney-General
Philip Lutz Jr, after a series Of
articles on tax abuses appeared in
The indianapolis Times last fall.
Decision desired by the tax board
was reached only after the case had
been fought through the superior,
appellate and supreme courts. Then
it was decided upon motion for re-
hearing.
Application of this new interpre-
tation of the law would restore
$40 100000 in taxables to the dupli-
cate in the city of indianapolis
alone. il was estimated by Commits
sioner Albert Walsman of the tax
board
baSed on lines FlsuEtS
His figures are based upon data
such as was used by The Times in
exposing tax exemption abuses.
II was disclosed then that such
business properties as the English
hotel block, Odd Fellow and K. of
P. buildings, Fame Laundry build
ing and the Guarantee Tire and
Rubber Company building are eX-
empt through donation of the prop
erty to institutions classed as be-
nevolent, educational or religious.
The tax board now contends that
this classification should apply only
to properties actually used for such
purposes. They asked the attorney
general TO rule in the matter.
Pending the ruling, the present
case has come down to strengthen
their cause, according to Chairman
Philip Zoercher of the tax board.
who aided in the prosecution of the
appeal.
TreanOr Writes Decision
The case is that of the Wander
burg county commissioners for COL
lection of back taxes from Wilhelm
Kreyling, Evansville. The latter
purchased with a $4,000 down pay
ment a $4,000 property from the
Evansville public library. with the
idea that it would be tax exempt.
He VAS to pay $1,000 year on the
contract and contended that the
only taxes which could be assessed
would be on Improvements made by
him.
Mr.. Kreyling won the suit in
Vanderburg superior court and on
appeal to the appellate court. The
tax board then took it into the SUI
preme court, where transfer was at
first denied. Upon motion to rehear
the case, it was accepted and the
present opinion. reversing findings
of the lower court, was handed
down.
The opinion was written by Jus
tice Walter Treanor. 1t contains
the following paragraph upon which
the tax commissioners expect to
base their exemption restoration
plnas. after the encouragement
rules:
Special Exemptions Cited
The fact that real estate may be
exempt from taxation in the hands
OF the holder of the fee at the time
when a contract to sell is made,
can not prevent its losing its exempt
character by reason or subsequent
changes in its ownership or use, or
both.
No class of property is exempt
from taxation unless it is specially
exempted by law and only property
used for municipal. education, liter
airy. scientific or charitable purposes
can be specially exempted by law.
And although the general as
semby. by appropriate legislative en-
actment may specially exempt a
class of property. subject TO con-
stitutional limitations. it can not
confer upon any particular piece OF
property an indehble imprint OF
nontaxability: and when the facts
which bring a particular item OF
property within an exempted class
cease to exist. the particular piece
of property necessarily loses its
exemption character
Tax commissioners pointed out
that the ordinary exemptions here
are made in the reverse manner TO
the facts in the suit. but that the
same reasoning will apply in their