Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the direction of the classification of property for purposes of taxation, or the taxation of some kinds of property in terms of the income it produces. A third way does not exist. Either method is preferable to the system made necessary by our Constitution.1

In 1915, in a special report to the Legislative Committee on Taxation, the Tax Commissioner said:

"Proportional" taxation has been defined by the Supreme Judicial Court in various decisions. Roughly speaking, we may say that under the rule of proportionality it has been deemed necessary that every kind of property here taxed must be taxed at the same rate as every other kind of property which is taxed, or that all taxable property must be subject to the same rate of taxation. Each municipality is a taxing district, and it follows that there are as many tax rates as there are municipalities, since in every case the rate is merely a quotient, i.e., the total amount to be raised divided by the total valuation of the assessed property in the municipality. Thus, the property of Woburn, with a rate of $26, is not taxed "proportionately" with the property of Orleans, where the rate is $3; but all taxed property in Woburn is taxed at $26, and all taxed property in Orleans is taxed at $3, and so on in every municipality. The Supreme Judicial Court has said that it is not possible for the Legislature to establish a uniform tax rate for any class of property everywhere in the Commonwealth, leaving other classes of property taxable at various municipal rates. This would not be "proportional.” 2

The Tax Commissioner further indicated that in his judgment the tax laws then in force had resulted in "the most disproportionate and unreasonable taxation between residents of various towns, and also as between residents of the same town owning different classes of property," and he added that a more strict enforcement "would cause equal or greater disproportion and unreasonableness." Since the above was written, the Forty-fourth Article of Amendment has been adopted, authorizing the classification of property for the purpose of levying an income tax. How far this obviates the objections to the requirement of uniformity in other forms of taxation it is difficult to determine.

In 1915 the Legislature passed a resolution providing for the submission to the people of an amendment removing the word "proportional" from the Constitution. The vote was 202 to 6

1 Report of the Tax Commissioner for the Year 1914, 8.

? The Intent and Operation of the Tax Laws of Massachusetts. Senate Doc. (1915), No. 440, p. 5.

in the House and 35 to 2 in the Senate. In 1916 the resolution again passed the House by a vote 179 to 49, but was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 15 to 22.

IV. THE PRACTICE OF THE SEVERAL STATES.

An examination of the constitutional provisions concerning the authority of the Legislature to classify property for purposes of taxation shows that thirty-four out of the forty-eight States of the Union permit such classification. In nineteen of these States there is express provision to that effect. In ten States the courts have held that the constitutional requirement of uniformity only means uniformity as to all property of the same kind or class. The constitutions of five States contain no restrictions on the taxing power other than certain vague phrases of doubtful meaning, and the courts of these States have held that classification is constitutional. In the remaining fourteen States, there is a constitutional requirement of uniformity, although in some, e.g., Massachusetts, classification is permitted to a limited extent.

The States may be arranged with reference to their constitutional provisions as to classification in the following groups:

1. States in which classification is explicitly provided for, with the date of the adoption of the constitutional provision: Arizona (1911); Colorado (1876); Delaware (1897); Georgia (1877); Idaho (1889); Illinois (1916); Kentucky (1915); Louisiana (1916); Maine (1913); Maryland (1915); Michigan (1908); Minnesota (1906); Missouri (1875); Montana (1889); New Mexico (1914); North Dakota (1914); Oklahoma (1907); Pennsylvania (1874) and Virginia (1902).

2. States in which the constitutional requirement of uniformity has been interpreted by the courts to mean uniformity as to property of the same kind or class: Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Wyoming.

3. States having only vague restrictions on the taxing power and in which the courts have held that classification is constitutional: Connecticut, Iowa, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.

4. States in which the constitutional requirement of uniformity is held to debar classification: Arkansas, California, Massachusetts (with exceptions), Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and West Virginia.

Amendments authorizing the classification of property for purposes of taxation were rejected by the people in Kansas, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio and Oregon in 1914, in California and Utah in 1915 and in South Dakota in 1916. An amendment expressly re-enacting the requirement as to uniformity with certain specific exceptions was adopted by the Legislature of Arkansas in 1915, but has not yet been acted upon by the people.

APPENDIX.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AS TO CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY.

ALABAMA, Art. XI, Sec. 211. All taxes levied on property in this State shall be assessed in exact proportion to the value of such property,

. . .

"The rule of uniformity does not require that all subjects be taxed, nor taxed alike. The requirement is complied with when the tax is levied equally and uniformly on all subjects of the same class and kind."

Hooper v. State (1904), 141 Ala. 111.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ARIZONA, Art. IX, Sec. 1. All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected for public purposes only.

ARKANSAS, Art. XVI, Sec. 5. All property subject to taxation shall be taxed according to its value, that value to be ascertained in such manner as the General Assembly shall direct, making the same equal and uniform throughout the State. No one species of property from which a tax may be collected, shall be taxed higher than another species of property of equal value.

"The Legislature cannot discriminate between different classes of property in the imposition of taxes. Its only discretion is in the ascertainment of values so as to make them equal and uniform throughout the State."

L. R. & F. S. Ry. v. Worthen (1885), 46 Ark. 312, 327.

CALIFORNIA, Art. I, Sec. 11. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation.

Art. XIII, Sec. 1. All property . . . shall be taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascertained as provided by law, or as hereinafter provided.

"But if it is still contended that taxation is equal when the same species of property, whatever it may be, is charged with the same ad valorem tax, the next clause of the section, 'All property in this State shall be taxed in proportion to its value.' is a complete answer to the position."

People v. McCreery (1868), 34 Cal. 432, 455.

COLORADO, Art. X, Sec. 3. All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Carbon County Sheep & Cattle Co. v. Routt County (1915), 60 Col. 224, 228.

CONNECTICUT. There are no constitutional provisions in Connecticut bearing expressly on taxation or using that term. Hence there is no requirement of equality or uniformity in taxation in the Constitution of Connecticut, and no such requirement may be implied from the nature of the instrument or the spirit of the Constitution.

State v. Travelers Ins. Company (1898), 70 Conn. 590.
State v. Travelers Ins. Company (1900), 73 Conn. 255.

"The statute in question has selected a class of property formerly exempt from taxation and made it subject to assessment. The plaintiff's property comes within that class. The plaintiff cannot complain because their like property subject to different uses, still remains exempt."

Norwalk v. New Canaan (1911), 85 Conn. 119, 124.
Baker v. West Hartford (1915), 89 Conn. 394, 398.

DELAWARE, Art. VIII, Sec. 1. All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax,

...

Art. VIII, Sec. 5. The General Assembly shall provide for levying and collecting a capitation tax. . . but such tax to be collected in any county shall be uniform throughout that county,...

FLORIDA, Art. IX, Sec. 1. The Legislature shall provide for a uniform and equal rate of taxation,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Classification of property for the purpose of taxation is constitutional. An act imposing a certain tax on all lands comprised in a certain class is uniform and equal although it be shown that different lands in that class differ in value.

Levy v. Smith (1851), 4 Fla. 154.

Hayes v. Walker (1907), 54 Fla. 163.

GEORGIA, Art. I, Sec. 3, Par. 1. Laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation throughout the State,..

Art. VII, Sec. 2, Par. 1. All taxation shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects, and ad valorem on all property subject to be taxed within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, . .

Ga. R.R. & Banking Co. v. Wright (1906), 125 Ga. 589.

IDAHO, Art. VII, Sec. 2. The Legislature shall provide such revenue as may be needful by levying a tax by valuation, so that every person or corporation shall pay a tax in proportion to the value of his, her, or its property, ..

...

Art. VII, Sec. 5. All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax,

...

ILLINOIS, Art. IX, Sec. 1. The General Assembly shall provide such revenue as may be needful by levying a tax by valuation, so that every person and corporation shall pay a tax in proportion to the value of his, her, or its property but the General Assembly shall have the power to tax peddlers, auctioneers . . . in such manner as it shall from

« AnteriorContinuar »