Show DENY RIGHT TO TAX lAX MERCHANTS Argument Made by Judge Zane in Test Case on License 5 Law THE PROBLEM IS INTRICATE OGDEN O DEN HILES MILES ARGUES IN BE BEHALF BEHALF BEHALF HALF OF MUNICIPALITY I The right to impose a license tax ta on merchants m was as called Into question q e tion yesterday morning by b Judge C S Zane In an extended argument before Judge Ju e George G Armstrong of the tue district court The Th action is s that brought by lie HIP city against the Christensen Shoo Shoe company t compel it to pay pa its 50 00 0 merchants license provided for in chapter 27 T revised ordinances ordinances nances 1903 The TIle company to the complaint an agreed statement of facts was prepared and the thC demurrer ar argued argued argued gued yesterday ane and Stringfellow appearing for the defendant and antI Ogden Jules HI pity city ell for the city Ity The case rm ens 8 is the tue first one of or its It charac character ter 11 ever I brought In It the stat slate Ial although h there have been leen supreme court decisions In other oilier eases cases involving this tills law but with facts als as n a The ease cato is or of considerable importance not only on I to the city from froni a financial stand standpoint standpoint point but to every f community in the state and the decision will b t be awaited with Interest No matter how bow Arin 1111 stron however an appeal will willbe willbe willbe be taken to the tue supreme court Three Reasons Advanced Judge Zane In his opening statement said that tile th defense based its case cage on three points namely First That the city council had hul no authority to pass the ordinance levying a tax on merchants I Second If the council lId did have han tills this power and authority It did not have the tue authority to collect a merchants license e because the tho th tax is not uniform as to class Third It is II a property tax and not an occupation tax He tic bused based b his bits argument on the state statement ment that this thin hiI was Will a n tax for revenue only and II that the payment did not hot con COll confer fer any an additional rights or privileges s on fin the th company co which would not otherwise accrue to it itIn itIn ItIn In support of his lila contention ho he cited i the thc case ease of Cache county against James JamesM Jam S Sr if M r Jensen 31 n I tali tah 2 fj to collect a W license tax levied on Oil sheep h ep p In this ease rase the supreme court held that lint where a It tax taxis taxis taxis is Imposed upon a business or 01 occupation it is not a Ilc lI ns unless the levy lev routers confers H it right or privilege as to 0 the tho business which would not otherwise be vested ested in it Ogden Case Cited Judge Hues HIIe for the th city In opposition to Judge Zanos argument cited the tile case of ot Ogden City against a tile the Bell Telephone compaQ company 17 Utah tah 61 6 This case grew out of oC an ordinance passed by hy the Ogden council taxing each telephone instrument j In the city 5 a year The supreme court held the tax was justified and within the power of the council and said that thata a city was empowered by b statute to raise revenue by b levying 1 inS a license fee or tax on any private corporation or business provided that all such sueh license fees shall I be le uniform in respect to the tho class upon which they are imposed Judge Zane replied to this tl s argument With the assertion that a telephone com corn company company pany is a public service corporation and instruments arc are used by all the tho JJ while on the other hand the de do defendant defendant Is simply a t merchant selling goods to whomsoever would buy bu from him He continued this line of oC argument by saying that although the statutes pr pro vide idu that a municipality can levy a tax on merchants or private corporations it is expressly provided in section subdivision subdivision sion 87 that All such license fees and taxes shall be uniform in respect td the theIss class Iss upon which they t ey are imposed License Not Uniform He lie then tried to show that the thie UI license complained of or Is not uniform The provide that for instance me mr chants with over in stock shall pay PH fl yearly carb All merchants with less boss than that of stock and not under must nu t pay 50 lIe IIo argued ar that lint ill in tile th case ca a merchants stock should be b valued at it he lie would pa pay while If it it was worth ti t I more mort it would cost him an additional J This lie he claimed was unjust Judge HilIs contended that license taxes hail to be ue graded In some manner an i that this had proved by experience to be bethe betho bethe the tho only onh practical II I manner und and that tho the thoI I courts would uphold It from this tills stand stan i i as a if jf it were werf we 1 not upheld the Ule In InI inI I I would bo be that lint the lie statutes con coil I the right to levy 14 this tax mi on I cities lIis are 14 re unconstitutional I I The rhe case role was submitted t d and an an opinion I II I ion on will probably be handed down with within I in the next ne month i |