|
cept that in one the owner was a person
whose usual vocation was that of farmer
whereas in the other the owner was a per-
son whose usual vocation was other than
a farmer, would the legislature under Sec-
tion 8.02 be justified in authorizing a sepa-
rate classification?
DELEGATE CASE: I would argue most
strenuously that it could not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser?
DELEGATE MOSER: Delegate Case,
this is not a question on farm assessments.
With respect to the reservation to the
State of the power to tax in section 7.05
which, as you know is a local government
article that was based on the Israeli case
proposal and also with respect to the grand-
father clause which is the last sentence of
that, the county may exercise such tax
powers as may be granted to it by law and
may continue to exercise any tax powers —
referring specifically to the words "power
to tax" or "tax powers" and also referring
to the same language as used in the State
Finance and Taxation grandfather clause
which is 8.01 (b), taxing powers as it is
used there. The question is, is it clear that
the reservation of the taxing power and
also the reference to taxing powers which
the sub-divisions now have or the counties
now have includes the power to grant ex-
emptions from tax. I take it the answer
is yes?
DELEGATE CASE: I wish it were as
clear as you and I would like to see it. I
think it is, but I have heard some dissent.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser?
DELEGATE MOSER: I was hopeful
that we might get a clear statement that
by the uses of these terms we intend to
reserve to the State, not — well, the power
to grant the power to tax to the sub-
divisions and along with it the power to
grant exemptions by the sub-divisions.
DELEGATE CASE: It is my own opin-
ion that the power to tax includes the
power to exempt. When one is granted it
includes the other.
THE CHAIRMAN: To paraphrase Dele-
gate Moser's question, it is the intent of
this section that the reservation of the
legislature of the power to tax and the
power to authorize counties to tax is in-
tended to include also the power in the
legislature to authorize counties to exempt
or not exempt properties to tax.
DELEGATE CASE: That is correct.
DELEGATE MOSER: As I see the prob-
lem, it probably would not arise there;.
|
There are cases which indicate that that is
pretty nearly correct. What I am concerned
about is the uses of the grandfather clauses
when we say the counties will retain the
taxing powers that we now have. The prob-
lem may arise from such changes as
Churchill v. Baltimore and Jones v. Brodey
in 135 Maryland which apply the Dillon
rule and strict instructions say in effect
when you grant the power to tax you do
not grant the power to grant exemptions.
What I am trying to elicit from you is that
we do not intend by this constitutional lan-
guage that narrow interpretation. We in-
tend to include the power to grant ex-
emptions.
DELEGATE CASE: That is correct.
DELEGATE MOSER: That is correct.
DELEGATE CASE: It was the existence
of those cases which prompted me to say
that under existing law there was some
question about it, although there is none
in my mind. Although certainly under the
provisions that we have here, there should
be no question about it and I hope there
will not be.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gilchrist.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: Delegate
Case, following the line of Delegate Moser's
questioning that was done last evening by
Delegate Henderson with specific reference
to the policy of granting industrial exemp-
tions which has been in effect in a number
of counties for some years, I wonder
whether it might not be proper that the
record would show the intention of the
Committee with respect to the specific situ-
ations. First, I would assume that the
Committee would feel that this has no
effect on existing exemptions.
DELEGATE CASE: That is correct.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: Then what
would be the feeling of the Committee on
the effect of the continuation of existing
powers of certain counties to grant exemp-
tions for new industries?
DELEGATE CASE: Well, as it is writ-
ten presently, I would think that those
powers would have to be exercised uni-
formly and I am considering, I might say,
and I might as well make this announce-
ment now, an amendment to section 8.02-2
which seeks to meet the point which Judge
Henderson made last night because I think
he had a good point.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case, I am
not sure that your answer was responsive
to Delegate Gilchrist's question. He was
|
