|
THE CHAIRMAN: It is true that under
section 8. 01 (a) the City of Baltimore could
be given the power to tax all property in
the City regardless of the fact that the
ownership of the property may be in non-
residents, who had no right to vote in the
City.
DELEGATE CASE: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett?
DELEGATE BENNETT: Delegate Case,
I hesitate to tax your patience and your
indulgence any further, but would you tell
me whether the section 8.02 mandates a
complete reassessment of all property
throughout the State, not only real prop-
erty, but every other type of property?
DELEGATE CASE: No, sir, it does not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: Well, after we
draft these rules and classifications and so
on and the legislature goes in, do we not
have to reassess the property under those
new classifications?
DELEGATE CASE: The legislature
could accept the classifications we now have
in which event there would not be any
necessity for it.
DELEGATE BENNETT: But the likeli-
hood is that it would require under a pretty
broad scale a reassessment?
DELEGATE CASE: This is very diffi-
cult to say. My own personal opinion is
that the General Assembly is not going to
depart very largely from, nor will the
State Department of Assessments and Tax-
ation depart very largely from the classifi-
cations we now have. You see, as of today
the State Department of Assessments and
Taxation has done a pretty fine job in
classifying land and, of course, personal
property has been classifiable for many,
many years so that these matters have
been under constant surveillance and have
been worked out by the authorities for a
long period of time. I see nothing in this
which is going to require a wholesale
scrapping of all of that and go into some-
thing new, and I do not think it will hap-
pen.
DELEGATE BENNETT: On the other
hand, you are not saying that this is
meaningless?
DELEGATE CASE: No, I am saying
this lays the foundation for the years to
come to permit reclassifications or sub-
classifications of the different kinds of
|
property, spaceships, for example. I do not
know what we are going to have.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: Delegate Case, in
your original conversation today with Dele-
gate Moser I understood you to say that
one of the intentions of 8.01-2 was to re-
quire uniform rules of classes both for the
State and for local subdivisions. Is that
correct?
DELEGATE CASE: Section 8.02-1 or
section 8.02 and section 8.02-1 — I am sorry,
Delegate Dukes, I have lost the thread of
your question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: It was my recol-
lection that we specifically separated sec-
tion 8.02, Assessments, and 8.02-2 to dis-
tinguish between all taxes, both State and
local, via uniform rules of assessments pro-
viding only those taxes imposed by the
State are subject to uniform rules?
DELEGATE CASE: No, you are in
error. We separate 8.02-2 from 8.02. Origi-
nally exemptions and assessments were
treated together. The equalization concept
was jammed between them.
DELEGATE DUKES: That is what I
said.
DELEGATE CASE: That is right. Now,
the reason for that was, as I have said
before, was that we found that there would
be a very great dislocation of the economy
of certain of the political subdivisions if
we provided that all existing exemptions
.should be made uniform.
DELEGATE DUKES: So there is no
requirement under 8.02-2 that exemptions
set by the local subdivisions be uniform.
DELEGATE CASE: Existing exemp-
tions. That is correct.
TPIE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Delegate Case,
would you very briefly give us the benefit
of the testimony before your committee
which justified, either by way of direct or
collateral benefits, the special consideration
of agricultural land?
DELEGATE CASE: If you can wait
just a minute, Delegate Clagett, I think
I can.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: While you are
hunting for that, with particular refer-
ence —
|
