199 N.Y. 162 | NY | 1910
This is a certiorari proceeding under the Tax Law to review the special franchise assessment against the relator in the city of Buffalo for the year 1909. The state board of tax commissioners fixed the valuation of the special franchise at two millions of dollars. It is not necessary to consider the original return to the writ, for the state board substituted therefor an amended return, the sufficiency of which is here in question.
Among the grounds for the valuation of the special franchise, set out in subdivision II of the amended return, the state board specifies the examination, investigation and inquiry made by and on behalf of such board "and such other facts as are contained in the annual report of the relator for the year 1908, the objections, evidence and oral arguments presented by the relator on the day set for a hearing by said State Board of Tax Commissioners, pursuant to statute, the reports of local assessors or other officers of the village, town or city in which said special franchises are situate, the reports made to said board by its agents, experts, or other investigators, and all the papers and documents, for the said year and previous years, filed by the relator, all of which reports, documents, papers and records are on file in the office of the said State Board of Tax Commissioners and are hereby incorporated into and made part of this return by reference as if herein at length set forth."
In subdivision III of the amended return it is stated that the board made no separate valuations of the tangible and intangible property but made the valuation of the special franchise in gross and as a whole. The return proceeds:
"That in arriving at the value of the intangible property to be considered in making the said valuation of the special franchise, said board did not limit itself to any one fixed rule or method of determining said value, but in arriving at such value, applied the tests of the so-called net earnings rule and of the so-called stock and bond theory so far as capable of being applied to the facts and circumstances presented by this case, and in the light of these tests and of all other circumstances *165 and conditions affecting the value of said intangible property which were before it as aforesaid, exercised its best judgment as to the value of said intangible property."
This statement does not seem to us to be a compliance with the direction of the statute that the return "must concisely set forth such other facts as may be pertinent and material to show the value of the property assessed on the roll and the groundsfor the valuation made by the assessing officers." (Tax Law, §
In the case of an assessment of real estate for purposes of taxation, a statement in the return to a writ of certiorari that the ground of the valuation fixed by the assessing officers was their own judgment of the value of the property, derived from their own knowledge, would seem to be sufficient, though not to be commended (People ex rel. Trowbridge v. McNamara,
We are unable to concur with the view of the attorney-general that it is impracticable or impossible to describe more fully the method by which the valuation was reached. This may be done, as we have already indicated, by a brief additional statement showing affirmatively how they acted instead of negatively how they did not act. In requiring the return to show the grounds for the valuation of a special franchise, the statute imposes no onerous task upon the state board of tax commissioners, nor has it been made burdensome by judicial construction. Our experience in this class of cases indicates that the requirement can generally be complied with by a statement not exceeding in length half a page of a printed record. Counsel representing the board in such cases seldom experience any difficulty in stating orally to the court the grounds of valuation actually adopted. If the same matter were stated in the return there would usually be no basis for criticism.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs, and the question certified answered in the negative.
GRAY, HAIGHT, HISCOCK and CHASE, JJ., concur; CULLEN, Ch. J., not sitting.
Order affirmed.