« PreviousContinue »
The Constitution forbids double taxation. (City and County of San Francisco v. Mackey, 21 Fed. 539, 22 Fed. 602.)
To tax property to corporation and stock to stockholders is double taxation and void. (City and County of San Francisco v. Mackey, 22 Fed. 602.)
The tangible property of a California corporation situated and taxed in Nevada is not taxable in California, through the medium of its stock. (City and County of San Francisco v. Mackey, 22 Fed. 602.)
EXEMPTION OF CHURCH PROPERTY.
Sec. 11, Art. XIII. All buildings, and so much of the real property on which they are situated as may be required for the convenient use and occupation of said buildings, when the same are used solely and exclusively for religious worship, shall be free from taxation; provided, that no building so used which may be rented for religious purposes and rent received by the owner therefor, shall be exempt from taxation. [Amendment adopted November 6, 1900.] Legislative History.
This section is new. The Constitution as adopted in 1879 made no such exemption. It was endeavored, without success, in the constitutional convention to secure an exemption of church property over five thousand dollars in value. (Constitutional Debates, p. 98.)
As yet this section has not been construed by the courts.
Mortgages on Church Property.-Mortgages on church property ara not exempt under the provisions of the above section. (Opinion of City Attorney of San Francisco, Franklin K. Lane, p. 438.)
The right of a mortgagor to a deduction of value of his mortgage is not affected by the fact that the mortgage is given to the regents of the state university, and is not taxable as being property of the state. (People v. Board of Supervisors, 77 Cal, 136, 19 Pac. 257.)
DEDUCTION OF VALUE OF SECURITIES FROM VALUE OF
PROPERTY AFFECTED. Sec. 4, Art. XIII. A mortgage, deed of trust, contract, or other obligation by which a debt is secured, shall, for the purposes of assessment and taxation, be deemed and treated as an inter
est in the property affected thereby. Except as to railroad and other quasi public corporations, in case of debts so secured, the value of the property affected by such mortgage, deed of trust, contract, or obligation, less the value of such security, shall be assessed and taxed to the owner of the property, and the value of such security shall be assessed and taxed to the owner thereof, in the county, city, or district in which the property affected thereby is situate. The taxes so levied shall be a lien upon the property and security, and may be paid by either party to such security; if paid by the owner of the security, the tax so levied upon the property affected thereby shall become a part of the debt so secured; if the owner of the property shall pay the tax so levied on such security, it shall constitute a payment thereon, and to the extent of such payment a full discharge thereof; provided, that if any such security or indebtedness shall be paid by any such debtor or debtors, after assessment and before the tax levy, the amount of such levy may likewise be retained by such debtor or debtors, and shall be computed according to the tax levy for the preceding year.
This section has no parallel in the Constitution of 1849.
The reason why no independent taxation of credits secured on the property of railroad corporations was provided for is thus explained in Germania Trust Co. v. San Francisco, 128 Cal. 596, 61 Pac. 178: "At the time the Constitution was framed and adopted it was supposed that the property of such corporations was commonly mortgaged to an amount equal to or greater than its value; the difficulty or impossibility of reaching their mortgage bonds when held, as is frequently the case, in the hands of numerous owners disbursed over the world, made it seem politic and convenient to fix them as an interest in the property by taxing the property without the deduction on account of the debt allowed to natural persons; the state could lose no revenue, nor would railroad property in any wise escape taxation- both of which contingencies were doubtless designed to be avoided; the plan also was not open to the imputation of an attempt at double taxation.”
This section is cited as to railroad and quasi public corporations in the following cases: C. P. R. R. v. Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 58; Germania Trust Co. v. City and County of San Francisco, 128 Cal. 592, 61 Pac. 178; Estate of Fair, 128 Cal. 610, 61 Pac. 184.
Railroad Property.—The property of railroad and other quasi public corporations is subject to taxation, without deduction of any mortgage or other like lien thereon. (Central Pac. R. R. Co. v. Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 35.)
The provision of this section taxing property of quasi public corporations, without deduction of liens thereon, is not in conflict with the provision of the United States Constitution that no state shall "deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” since that provision does not apply to artificial persons. (Central Pac. R. R. Co. v. Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 35. To the contrary: Railroad Tax Cases, 13 Fed. 722.)
This section discriminates against railroad companies by imposing a greater burden on their property than is imposed upon natural persons. (Santa Clara Co. v. S. P. R. R. Co., 18 Fed. 385.)
This section violates the rule as to uniformity of taxation. (Railroa] Tax Cases, 13 Fed. 722.)
Bonds of a railroad company secured by mortgages of its property within the state are not assessable to the holder of the bonds. (Germania etc. Co. v. San Francisco, 128 Cal. 589, 61 Pac. 178; Estate of Hair, 128 Cal. 607, 61 Pac. 184.)
Whether the loan secured by the stocks and bonds is or is not an interest in the “property affected thereby' for the purpose of taxation within the meaning of this section, and conceding that the stocks and bonds may be exempt from taxation, the debt secure thereby for money loaned is not exempt, but may be taxed to the lender. (Savings etc. Soc. v. San Francisco, 131 Cal. 356, 63 Pac. 665.)
ASSESSMENT OF RAILROADS.
Sec. 10, Art. XIII. All property, except as hereinafter in this section provided, shall be assessed in the county, city, city and county, town, township, or district in which it is situated, in the manner prescribed by law. The franchise, roadway, roadbed, rails and rolling-stock of all railroads operated in more than one county in this state shall be assessed by the state board of equalization, at their actual value, and the same shall be apportioned to the counties, cities and counties, cities, towns, townships, and districts in which such railroads are located, in proportion to the number of miles of railway laid in such counties, cities and counties, cities, towns, townships, and districts.
This section has no parallel in the Constitution of 1849. Mr. Justice Henshaw says, in San Francisco etc. Ry. v. San Francisco, 26 Cal. Dec. 104, that the end sought to be attained was a just and uniform method of taxation for railroads operated in more than one county. "The section, as originally introduced, provided for the assessment of all railroad property by the board of equalization, but was amended so as to provide only for such assessment where the road was operated in more than one county.
This section is cited as to the assessment of railroad property in the following cases: People v. Sacramento Co., 59 Cal. 325; San Francisco etc. R. R. Co. v. State Board, 60 Cal. 28; C. P. Co. v. Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 58; San Francisco v. C. P. R. R. Co., 63 Cal. 469, 49 Am. Rep. 98; People v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 83 Cal. 401, 23 Pac. 303; People v. C. P. Co., 105 Cal. 591, 38 Pac. 905; San Diego Co. v. Riverside Co., 125 Cal. 499, 58 Pac. 81; Germania Trust Co. v. San Francisco Co., 128 Cal. 593, 61 Pac. 178; San Francisco & S. M. Ry. Co. v. Scott, 26 Cal. Dec. 103.
Situs of Railroad Property.—This section is self-executing. (San Francisco etc. R. R. Co. v. State Board, 60 Cal. 12.)
It has no relation to the assessment of the property of railroad corporations operated in more than one county. (Central Pac. R. R. Co. v. Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 35.)
Boards of supervisors of the several counties, through which run railroads operated in more than one county, have no jurisdiction to raise or lower the assessment placed upon the property of such roads by the board of equalization. (People v. Sacramento County, 59 Cal. 321.)
This section does not in terms require the assessed value of the franchise, roadway, roalbed, rails, and rolling stock, to be separately apportioned. (San Francisco etc. R. R. Co. v. State Board, 60 Cal. 12.)
Steamers used by a railroad company in transporting its freightcars across the bay of San Francisco are not included in the property mentioned in this section, and should be assessed by the local as. sessors, and not by the state board of equalization. (San Francisco 1. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 63 Cal. 467, 49 Am. Rep. 98; State v. C. F. R. R. Co., 127 U. S. 1, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073.)
A law providing for the assessment and collection of taxes upon railroads operating in more than one county is valid. (People v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 105 Cal. 576, 38 Pac. 905; People v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 83 Cal. 393, 23 Pac. 303, overruled.)
In making a reassessment of railroad taxes, to take the place of an invalid as essment of a previous year, it the duty of the board to make the apportionment to the counties as they existed at tho time of the invalid assessment, and not at the time of the reassessment. (San Diego County v. Riverside County, 125 Cal. 495, 58 Pac. 81.)
Railroad property not specified in this section is assessed for taxation by the local assessor of the county, town, or other taxing district where situated. (Germania Trust Co. v. San Francisco, 128 Cal. 589, 61 Pac. 178.)
The word "railroads" as nised in this section does not include street railroads. (S. F. & S. M. Ry. Co. v. Scott, decided Feb. 16, 1904.)
Fences are not part of the roadway assessable by board of equalization, but are improvements assessable only by the local authori. ties of the county in which they are situated. (Santa Clara Co. v. S. P. R. R. Co., 118 T. S. 394, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1132.)
Rolling stock owned by a lessee and used by it in operating a leased line in more than one county in the state is properly assessed to the lessee. (Smith v. Rackliffe, 83 Fed. 983.)
§ 1. Use of water a public use—Water rates.
2. Right to collect rates-How exercised.
USE OF WATER A PUBLIC USE-WATER RATES.
Sec. 1, Art. XIV. The use of all water now appropriated, or that may hereafter be appropriated, for sale, rental, or distribution, is hereby declared to be a public use, and subject to the regulation and control of the state, in the manner to be prescribed by law; provided that the rates or compensation to be collected by any person, company, or corporation in this state for the use of water supplied to any city and county, or city or town, or the inhabitants thereof, shall be fixed, annually, by the board of supervisors, or city and county, or city or town council, or other governing body of such city and county, or city or town, by ordinance or otherwise, in the manner that other ordinances or legislative acts or resolutions are passed by such body, and shall continue in force for one year and no longer. Such ordinances or resolutions shall be passed in the month of Fehruary of each year, and take effect on the first day of July