OCR Text |
Show Defendants File Answers To Washington Co. Suit The suit recently brought by Washington County to prevent the Southern Utah Power Company making refunds to Iron County pumpers came one step nearer to being settled last week when toe power company and the State Tax Commission filed answers to the action. On October 21 Washington County Coun-ty officials petitioned the Supreme Court of the state of Utah for a writ of prohibition against the State Tax Commission and Southern South-ern Utah Power Company and attacked at-tacked the constitutionality of a state law which-provides that electrical elec-trical equipment used for irrigation pumping should be tax free and that refunds should be paid the pumpers covering the amount of taxes on property so used. The Supreme Su-preme Court Issued the writ, forbidding for-bidding the State Tax Commission to order the power company to make the refunds. Last Thursday an answer to the action was filed by the Southern Utah Power Company in which the company denied certain claims made by Washington County to the effect that only a portion of the power company's property in that county was used for furnishing electrical energy to the pumpers, and declared that the company's property should be considered as a unit as it has been in the past. The State Tax Commission likewise filed an answer In which the commission upheld the methods used in the past for calculating the pump refunds. re-funds. In addition to the action taken lost week by the tax commission and power company, the Cedar Valley Pumpers Association, through Its attorney, Durham Morris, and the Parowan Valley Pumpers Association, Associa-tion, through its attorney, A. M. Marsden, filed a request with the Supreme Court that they be allowed allow-ed to intervene in the case and also denied the claims of Washington Cfeunty. Inasmuch as the action was brought only against the Tax Commission and the Southern Utah Power Company, pump associations and pumpers In other sections of the state have not intervened, but it is understood that at least one brief was filed with the State Supreme Su-preme Court attacking the action of Washington County. Due to the writ of prohibition given by the court, the power company com-pany will be unable to make pump refunds this year. However, In order or-der that the power company could pay its taxes in full and yet protect pro-tect the interests of the pumpers, an agreement was made with the county coun-ty treasurers of Washington and Iron Counties to the effect that the counties would not use that portion of the tax monies which would have been . refunded to the pumpers had not Washington county coun-ty brought the court action. Thus In Washington County, the power company paid a total of $14,545.40 in taxes, $12,333.79 of which went Into the county funds, the remaining remain-ing $2,211.67 being held In a suspense sus-pense account by the county treasurer trea-surer until the court action Is settled set-tled at which time that amount will be distributed in accordance with the court order. Similar action was taken In Iron County where the company's taxes amounted to $10,-736.13, $10,-736.13, of which $9,108.89 went Into county funds and $1,627.24 Is being held pending settlement of the suit. Of the $120.99 paid in taxes by the company to Beaver County, $23.36 will likewise be held up. Due to the fact that lines and plants owned by the company in Kane county are not used for furnishing services to pumpers, this property was not involved in the suit and the total of $1,959.50 paid in taxes would, of course, go into the county fund. Reid H. Oardner, president of the Southern Utah Power Company, Com-pany, announced that his company would pay approximately $31,800 in Federal and other taxes this year which will bring the company's com-pany's tax bill to over $39,000 for 1941, an increase of approximately 600 per cent In ten years. 9 |