|
|
|
|
Once upon a time, In an old SDAAO New Bulletin, There was an Article October, 1968
ARE WE SUBSIDIZING OUR WEALTHIER
CITIZENS? In our appraising and assessing process, I wonder if most Directors or Assessors are not, in the equalization process, causing grave injustices to the less affluent members of our society. I will try to explain what I mean. Mr. Struggler builds himself a $12,000 home. We appraise it and come up with approximately a $12,000 value on his property. Applying our assessment ratio he pay taxes accordingly on his home. Mr. Smith builds himself a $22,000 home and we also appraise it at approximately $22,000, and he also pays taxes accordingly. Now maybe the next example will vary according to the different communities, but Mr. Gotrocks builds himself a $60,000 home, more than likely a monument to himself and his success (or his father's success) and we come along and appraise it and conclude that it is worth the money all right - but we say the market is very limited for a home like this, so we apply obsolescence for being overbuilt, perhaps up to 40%. I think most of us have to pull the figure out of the air because we do have a very limited number of sales to go by to substantiate values in this class of home. We are dealing with what we call Ad Valorem tax. It seems to work with Struggler and Smith but when we come to Gotrocks, it sort of falls apart. Mr. Gotrocks builds his home the way he wants it and most likely wouldn't sell it at any price until he is ready to build bigger and better. Homes of this class have their own personalities and an intrinsic value to its owner that makes it worth its full cost value less normal depreciation as its appraised value. I imagine this has been kicked around by smarter men than I and resolved as it has been applied. But are we fair to our less affluent tax payers? This isn't an income tax so that we "soak the rich" but can we call it an ad valorem tax? _______________________________________________________________________________________ February, 1978 History of the Department of Revenue During the first two years following the admission of South Dakota into the union, certain statutes were passed by the Legislature governing the administration of the property tax in the state. The assessment of all property other than that of public service corporations was placed in the hands of local officials whose work was equalized by local and county boards and finally by a State Board of Equalization. The Constitution provided that all taxable property should be assessed according to its value in money. In 1913 a bill was passed that provided that a state board be created to be designated and known as the Tax Commission. This commission was composed of three commissioners to be appointed by the governor, each for a term of six years. The commission found that the Tax Commission Act of 1913 left much to be desired in reference to its powers and recommended to the Legislature certain changes in the existing law. Among these recommendations was the office of county assessor in all counties and the abolishment of the office of town and township assessors. The Tax Commission, as such, continued until July 1, 1925 when the Civil Administration Code was passed by the Legislature. Under this act, several state departments were consolidated under two heads: the Department of Agriculture ad the Department of Finance. The Department of Finance was subdivided into four divisions, one of which was the Division of Taxation. The duties performed by the commission were now to be performed by the Division of Taxation. Effective July 1, 1955, a Department of Revenue was created. The Division of Taxation and Licensing as existing under the Department of Finance was abolished and all duties, powers, functions and responsibilities of the Secretary of Finance pertaining to these two divisions were transferred to the Commissioner of Revenue. The head of the Department of Revenue was the Commissioner of Revenue who was appointed by the governor. The commissioner (later changed to the Secretary of Revenue) was empowered to establish such divisions within the department as might be necessary for the proper functioning of the department. The Commissioner of Revenue established three major divisions under the Department of Revenue, namely: The Division of Taxation: the Motor Fuel Tax Division: and the Alcoholic Beverage and Cigarette Tax Division. In the following years changes were made in the division of the department and a Property Tax Division, Sales and Use Tax Division, Audit Division, and Special Taxes and Licensing Division were created. In 1973, by executive order, state government was reorganized and principal departments were created. The Department of Revenue was one of the principle departments. Many of the newly created departments received duties and functions of the many of the prior Department of Revenue and no duties or functions of other agencies or departments were transferred to the new Department of Revenue. The Department of Revenue continued the Division of Sales and Use Tax, Property Tax, Motor Fuel Tax and Special Taxes and Licensing, Audits, and created a Division of Departmental Services. Currently the Department of Revenue administers 33 different taxes. Among them are the property tax, including mobile home and centrally assessed properties, motor fuel, and sales and use taxes, motor vehicle 3 percent registration, cigarette, inheritance, bank franchise, liquor and ore taxes. ________________________________________________________________________________________ Office of Tax Commission
1914-1917 C.M Henry,
Chairman,
Division of Taxation, Department of Finance
1925-32 B.W. Baer
Department of Revenue
1955-57 W.R. Wilder Secretary of Revenue
1973-77 Lyle Wendel Secretary of Revenue and Regulation
1996 -2006 Gary
Viken ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ How Many Old Timers do you remember??
|
