Opinion ID: 2098942
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Amount of the Assessment

Text: Jewell acknowledges that the State Board used the information provided by Jewell to cross-check for the owners that correctly reported their grain, but did not use the information to assess the owners who did not properly report their grain. Brief of Appellee at 13. The statute indicates where personal property should be reported: Personal property shall be assessed at the place where it is situated on the assessment date of the year for which the assessment is made if the property is: (1) regularly used or permanently located where it is situated; or (2) owned by a nonresident who does not have a principal office within this state. Ind. Code § 6-1.1-3-1(c)(West 1989). This principle has survived many incarnations. Indiana taxation principles have long followed the theory that personal property of non-residents of this State, having the protection of our laws, must bear its fair share of the burdens of taxation. 1891-92 Op.Att'y Gen. 41, 42 (1891). As early as 1896 this Court wrote of the wisdom of requiring personal property used in business in Indiana to be assessed here even though the owner may reside elsewhere. Otherwise, the Court mused: The property owner, to be sure, may have certain occasional twinges of conscience,  that he is sponging off the community, that he is receiving the benefits of the laws for the protection of his property, that the courts are open to him ... that all his personal property and business interests are as carefully guarded as if he were a citizen of and domiciled in the state; but that all these things are done for him at the expense of his neighbors, the citizens of the state, who pay their taxes regularly from year to year. Those twinges of conscience will, however, grow more dulled from year to year, and finally, perhaps cease altogether; and, in time, if he perseveres, he will come to regard it as his sacred right to bring all his ... business, without being at all hampered by local or state taxes, at the same time that he enjoys all the rights, privileges and protection of citizenship. Buck v. Miller (1897), 147 Ind. 586, 594-95, 47 N.E. 8, 9. While this discussion focuses on the evils of nonpayment by out-of-state owners of goods located within the state, it is easy to apply the same rational at the intrastate level. Indeed subsequent provisions specifically required all goods and chattels situated in some township, town or city other than where the owner resides be assessed in the township, town or city where situated. 1929-30 Op.Att'y Gen. 598 (1930). Another point of logic that we perceive in this chain of authority is that the assessor in the place where the goods are located stands the best chance of discovering goods which have not been properly reported. In other words, the goods are most easily found where they are in fact stored. Since it is clear that the grain owners who stored grain in Jewell's elevators should have filed returns in Steuben Township, we see no reason why the Board should be required to search for improperly filed returns. Jewell asserts the State may reap double taxes unless Jewell is exempt from paying taxes on goods owned by farmers who paid in other townships. This argument would be persuasive if double taxation was considered per se unlawful. It is not. When the purpose of a taxing act is plain, courts will not interfere. It is not permissible to ignore the words of the statute in order to avoid double taxation. Aluminum Co. of America v. United States, 67 F.2d 172, 175 (3d Cir.1933), cert. denied, 291 U.S. 666, 54 S.Ct. 441, 78 L.Ed. 1057 (1934). See also Estate of Renick v. United States, 687 F.2d 371, 374, 231 Ct.Cl. 457 (1982). We would not, however, expect Jewell to repay taxes on grain that it can prove has been assessed. See Nyce v. Schmoll (1907), 40 Ind. App. 555, 82 N.E. 539 (securities owner lived in one county, agent with possession and control of the securities lived in another county; owner who informed city treasurer that taxes on the securities had been assessed to and paid by agent, could not be required to pay the taxes again himself). Except for amounts Jewell proves were paid by owners, we order reinstatement of the State Board's assessment. DeBRULER, GIVAN, PIVARNIK and DICKSON, JJ., concur.