130 Iowa 494 | Iowa | 1906
In our judgment- this ruling cannot be sustained. We are unable to discover any vestige of actionable fraud in the admitted facts. It is not denied that Snyder had in fact at least $11,000 in moneys and credits. Indeed, it is "apparent that he had much more than that sum; and while under our tax laws it was his privilege to have the amount of his bona fide indebtedness deducted from the sum of his moneys and credits, it was nevertheless a privilege which he was not bound to exercise. It may be true that the waiver of this right on his part was a sacrifice to appearances and even though the general public may have been deceived thereby it falls far short of a fraud in law. Prompted by the same motive, one man may indulge in a new dress suit, another may invest in diamonds or fine horses or automobiles, and another may contribute beyond his ability to the campaign fund of his party or to. the salary of his wife’s
As Ave have already said, the property taxed did, in fact, exist in the hands of Snyder when it was assessed. No collusion, fraud, or Avrong is charged against the taxing officers. No claim of over valuation was made to the board of review, no appeal was taken therefrom as provided by law, no illegality or irregularity appears anyAvhere along the line. If, under such circumstances, the creditors of every failing debtor may go into the courts and enjoin the payment of taxes assessed against him under the claim that the taxed property was over valued or that the debtor failed or refused to exercise to the full extent his right to set off his debts and liabilities against his taxable moneys and credits, the collection of public revenues might be seriously embarrassed \ by vexatious litigation. The law provides the scheme of | taxation and special tribunals and remedies by which irregularities and inequalities therein may be remedied,- and it is
As we have already suggested the tax is neither illegal nor void. It is not even erroneous, irregular, or informal. Snyder had the property which was taxed and that property charged with the tax has passed into the hands of the assignee. That such tax would have been less, or that no tax would have been levied had Snyder seen fit to disclose his true condition to the assessor and demand the setting off of his liabilities to the full amount of his moneys and credits, is something, which, at this stage of affairs, is wholly immaterial. Had he made no assignment, he would not now be heard to dispute the validity of the tax, and in this respect his assignee occupies no stronger position.
Counsel for assignee cite us to the constitutional provision that all laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation throughout the state, and to decisions holding that our laws should be so construed as to avoid double taxation, ■and that moneys and credits are assessable in the taxing district where the owner _ resides. We cheerfully concede the soundness of all these propositions, but confess our inability to find their application to the case in hand. There is no question raised as to Snyder’s residence; the tax may have been greater than would have been levied had he claimed all the deductions which he might rightfully have demanded, but it is in no sense “ double taxation ” ; and if there is any statute involved in this proceeding which contravenes the constitutional inhibition against special legislation counsel have not called it to our attention.
The decree of the district court is therefore reversed.