In Re Taxes Maui Agricultural Co.

34 Haw. 566, 1938 Haw. LEXIS 21
Hawaii Supreme Court·Decided June 13, 1938·No. No. 2238.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

*567 OPINION OP THE COURT BY

PETERS, J.

This is the same case reported at page 515, ante. The' merits of the taxpayer’s objections to the assessment made of its personal property as of January 1,1934, will now be considered within the limitations therein expressed except as modified by the occurrence to which we are about to refer.

After our earlier opinion was filed the taxpayer challenged the construction placed by us upon the admissions made by one of its attorneys and moved to strike our statement that “one of the attorneys for the taxpayer conceded, as we understand his admissions, that costs of ‘growing crops’ were used by the taxpayer in determining income tax liability under the territorial Income Tax Law.” Ante, p. 556. The court refreshed its memory of the proceedings had upon the occasion of the admissions referred to and concluded that ample justification existed for its statement. But although the motion to strike was denied, *568 the court announced that it would consider the case as though the admissions of counsel had been withdrawn.

Had the concession not been made, we would not have confined the consideration of the general objections of the taxpayer as announced in paragraph 5 of our conclusions to the assessment of “machinery and equipment” as a whole, but would have included as subject to the same general objections the assessment of “growing crops” as a whole, and would have indicated by appropriate language the extent of review in the event that the general objections to the assessment of “growing crops” were or were not well-taken.

Hence it has become necessary to announce preliminarily as an additional conclusion resulting from the concrete application of the principles announced in our former opinion that we will also consider the general objections of the taxpayer “that, with the exception of annually inventoried merchandise and supplies, no valuation of personal property was made by it to determine income tax liability and that the provisions of the second sentence of section 9 of the Personal Property Tax Act did not apply,” as applicable to the assessment of “growing crops” as a whole. Further, if these general objections are not well-taken, we will consider the four deductions claimed against the costs of “growing crops,” numbered 1, 3, 6 and 7 respectively, but if deductible, only to the extent that said objections,, or any of them, affect the assessment of “growing crops” as a whole. If the general objections, or either of them, are however Avell-taken, we will not consider the objection of overvaluation of “growing crops,” the “growing crops” of the taxpayer not having been assessed separately for each item thereof according to law.

The assessment of “growing crops” was an en masse assessment. According, to the return of the taxpayer (see ante, p. 522, note 1, item 18) “growing crops” were returned in a lump sum amount. This amount was described as the *569 “total costs allocated * * * to future crops including all costs of 1934 crop (both harvested and unharvested).” The lump sum of $2,157,009.34 is the summation of all the operating expenses of the taxpayer of the 1934, 1935 and 1936 crops to and including December 31, 1933 (exhibit “C” of report of treasurer of Maui Agricultural Company, Limited, tax assessor’s exhibit “A”), set forth in the property accounts of the taxpayer as of December 31, 1933 (exhibit “A” report of treasurer of Maui Agricultural Company, Limited, tax assessor’s exhibit “A”), and carried forward in the balance sheet of the taxpayer as of December 31, 1933, in the total sum entered to the credit of “property accounts.” (Exhibit “H” report of treasurer of Maui Agricultural Company, Limited, tax assessor’s exhibit “A.”)

The acreage originally carried for the 1934 crop comprised 1001 acres plant and 3842 acres ratoons or 4843 acres total. (Eeport of manager of Maui Agricultural Company, Limited, under date of February 5, 1934, exhibit “A.”) The details of the 1934 crop fields are quoted in the margin. 1 (See taxpayer’s exhibit “2.”) On October 16, 1933, an estimate was made of the 1934 crop, the details of Avhich are quoted in the margin. 2 The area first carried for the 1935 crop comprised 1014 acres plant and 3580 acres ratoons or a total of 4594 acres. (See manager’s report, tax assessor’s exhibit “A.”) The details of the 1935 crop fields of the taxpayer are quoted in the margin. 3 (See taxpayer’s exhibit “4.”) It was expected that about 825 acres Avould be planted for the 1936 crop and there would be about 3875 acres ratooned making a total of approximately 4700 acres. (Eeport of manager of Maui Agricultural Company, Limited, tax assessor’s exhibit “A.”) The details of the 1935 crop as of the taxation date are quoted in the margin. 4

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In Re Taxes Maui Agricultural Co., 34 Haw. 566, 1938 Haw. LEXIS 21 (haw 1938).

34 Haw. 566 (In Re Taxes Maui Agricultural Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Untitled Case
D. Hawaii, 2026
Lau v. Lopez
145 P.3d 774 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2006)