Mr. Moss. I asked, first, if this was not providing an additional remedy for the railroads. Mr. OGDEN. My answer to that is "Yes." Mr. Moss. And one not available to other utilities? Mr. OGDEN. My answer to that would be precisely "Yes." Mr. Moss. Of course, it would. Do you think that we are justified in only tackling part of this problem? If we are going to marshal the power of the Federal Government to achieve tax equality, why not marshal it for all firms affected by these actions, firms engaged in interstate commerce? Before coming here, I was a practicing real estate broker and I know in some of these industrial parks I have heard my clients allege that they suffered highly discriminatory treatment. I don't know whether they did, but if they did, shouldn't they also, if engaged in interstate commerce, have this additional remedy available to them? Mr. OGDEN. Yes, sir. It covers all common carriers subject to the Interstate Commerce Act. Mr. Moss. It covers the common carriers subject to it, doesn't it? Mr. OGDEN. Well, pipelines are common carriers. Mr. Moss. Let us talk about Safeway Stores. They are in interstate commerce, and they are not a carrier. They have large warehouses in many industrial parks across this Nation. If they alleged discriminatory treatment, would this be available to them? Mr. OGDEN. If they were common carriers; yes. Mr. Moss. Well, they are not. Mr. OGDEN. I can't help it if they are not common carriers, Mr. Moss. Mr. Moss. I just wanted to get on the record here the fact that this would be an additional remedy available only to one class of citizen and not to others who might have a very similar or an identical problem. That is all. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Would the gentleman yield? The point is, I don't think that it ought to be confined to a railroad, but this is a common carrier bill. It has to do with all common carriers. One of the reasons for it is that it was in this general area where discrimination was quite obvious. As a matter of fact, if you go back not too many years ago, you will find the general saying was that the railroads stood for it because it was a good tax source and they were also a good defendant in lawsuits. Mr. Moss. My other point is that there are other utilities who allege the same sort of discriminatory treatment. I recall full well, during the hearings in the California Legislature in 1949 on legislation proposed by then Assemblyman Kirkwood, that we had the same allegations made, as I recall, by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., by Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., and other important business members of our State community. Mr. OGDEN. Mr. Moss, I would have no objection to them being included at all. Mr. Moss. I just wanted to point out that we are going to open this Pandora's box and if we are going to do that we should know full well the dimensions. If we are going to provide this additional relief, where do we stop? If the test is the effect upon interstate commerce, and the burden upon interstate commerce, then we have a long way further to go than is included in the bill before us. I don't personally want us to start down that road at this time. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Would the gentleman yield further? I don't get the point of the gentleman's argument. Now, my attention has not been called to discrimination with regard to Safeway, but it is my feeling that in whatever field there is discrimination it ought to be corrected, and if it is not corrected at the State level, it ought to be corrected at the Federal level. One of the basic premises of our Constitution is equality of taxation. I don't care whether it is a railroad or a truck of Safeway or who it is, if there is discrimination it ought to be corrected. Mr. Moss. Why limit this additional remedy to common carriers? Why not open it up to everybody? Mr. ROGERS of Texas. If the gentleman will yield further, if the gentleman will furnish me with the evidence as to other people engaged in interstate commerce, which would give us jurisdiction to act in this field, I will be most happy to study the evidence and introduce legislation to correct tax discrimination. Mr. Moss. I have no doubt that I could get many firms engaged in interstate commerce to come before this committee and make the statement that they suffered discriminatory treatment. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. If they can establish this, and prove it, they ought to be entitled to relief unless we are just doing lip service to equality in tax matters. Mr. Moss. I think if we are going to provide relief, we should provide it for all taxpayers who can make a case of discriminatory treatment, whether they are common carrier or individuals. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Springer, do you have any questions? Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Ogden, when you were before the committee, do you recall some questions I asked you at that time with reference to the constitutionality? Mr. OGDEN. Yes, sir. Mr. SPRINGER. Now, you are satisfied that this legislation, the Waggonner bill which has been introduced, or the Rogers bill, that this is constitutional even in the face of State laws which apply for equalization of assessments? Mr. OGDEN. I do. Mr. SPRINGER. Even though there may be such in the States? Mr. SPRINGER. Now, I think since you were before the committee, you have had some decisions, and I noticed, for instance, in Illinois that there was a suit brought by the Burlington, and your line, the C.N. & W., which came up in 1961, and the C.N. & W. case in May of 1963. Now, you have a case pending of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy, as of last November, which was continued to April 27th of this year that is pending in the circuit court of Cook County. Are you familiar with that case? Mr. OGDEN. In a general way; yes, sir. Mr. SPRINGER. Now, what they are seeking there is a return of taxes based on overassessment; isn't that correct? Mr. OGDEN. That is a little oversimplification of it, but it is basically correct. Mr. SPRINGER. That is about right, in layman's language, so all of the committee can understand it. Mr. OGDEN. Yes, sir. Mr. SPRINGER. Now, in Illinois, in 1963, we remedied this situation so there could be no doubt. The Illinois State Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, what was called this section 561 of chapter 120 of Illinois State Code, section 561, a method of determining fair cash value and equalizing assessed value. I won't go into the whole of that, which contains some four long paragraphs, but I would like to read the last paragraph to give this committee some idea of how the State of Illinois corrected this thing. The department shall determine the equalized assessed value of the property of every railroad company, other than noncarrier real estate this gets into Mr. Moss' point, and we took care of that, and we didn't include that by applying to its determination of the fair cash value of such property of every railroad company an equalization factor, which factor shall be the statewide average ratio of the equalized assessed value of locally assessed property to the full, fair cash value of such locally assessed property. Now, in essence, this is what you are talking about in this bill, Waggonner bill, is it not? Mr. OGDEN. Yes. sir. the Mr. SPRINGER. Now, pursuant to that, and to give the committee an example of what is required under the law, here are two legals which, Mr. Chairman, I would like to, if I might, insert in the record at this point, if it is in order. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be inserted. Mr. SPRINGER. And also section 561 of chapter 120 of the Revenue Code which gives the makeup of this evaluation. (The documents referred to follow :) [From the Illinois State Journal and Register, Dec. 24, 1963] PUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the Department of Revenue of the State of Illinois has determined the 1963 fair cash valuation of railroad property subject to its assessment jurisdiction, under authority of the Revenue Act of 1939, as amended. Original assessments have been made on the basis of fair cash valuation to which has been applied a statewide equalization factor of 50 percent. Fair cash valuation and original assessments by companies are set forth below: Chicago Union Station Co.. Chicago West Pullman & Southern RR. Co.. Davenport Rock Island & North Western Ry. Co.. Depue & Northern RR. Co.. East St. Louis Junction RR. Co.. Grand Trunk Western RR. Co.. Illinois Northern Ry... Illinois Terminal RR. Co.. Indiana Harbor Belt RR. Co.. Jefferson Southwestern RR. Co.. LaSalle & Bureau County RR. Co. $6,020,000 37, 700,000 8,000 $12,038, 000 16,000 32,090,000 2, 550, 000 12, 717,000 5, 190, 000 63,800,000 4, 184, 000 40,000 5, 290, 000 18, 317,000 68, 890,000 1,840,000 530,000 28, 363,000 1,060, 000 1,300,000 30,000 1, 160, 000 30, 720,000 1,050, 000 8, 280, 000 59, 470,000 101, 932, 000 1,578, 000 13,950, 000 15, 400, 000 16, 045, 000 13, 610, 000 13, 600, 000 200, 000 1,275,000 19, 220, 000 9,420,000 1, 000, 000 57,250,000 14, 170, 000 91, 490, 000 6,360,000 2, 595,000 31, 900, 000 2,092, 000 20,000 2,645,000 9, 160, 000 34, 445,000 920,000 265,000 14, 185, 000 530,000 650,000 15,000 580, 000 15, 360, 000 525,000 4, 140, 000 29, 735, 000 50,970, 000 790,000 6,975,000 7,700,000 Manufacturers' Junction Ry. Co... Soo Line RR. Co.. Missouri & Illinois Bridge & Belt RR. Co. Missouri-Illnois RR. Co.. Missouri Pacific RR. Co.... Monon Railroad.. New York Central RR. Co. New York Chicago & St. Louis RR. Co.. Paducah & Illinois RR. Co.. Pennsylvania RR. Co... Peoria & Pekin Union Ry. Co.. Peoria Terminal Co... St. Louis & O'Fallon Ry.. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. Southern Illinois & Missouri Bridge Co.. Southern Ry, Co.. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis. 14,000 15, 650, 000 590,000 50,000 5,970,000 700,000 7, 100, 000 30, 000, 000 500,000 70, 200, 000 46,020,000 700,000 64, 730,000 7,140,000 1,270,000 260,000 4,700,000 2, 100, 000 25,000 2,985, 000 350,000 3,550,000 15, 000, 000 250,000 35, 100, 000 23, 010, 000 350,000 32, 365,000 3,570, 000 635,000 130,000 2,350,000 1,050,000 Application for review of the foregoing will be received by the Department within 10 days of this date. Such application must be in writing and shall be filed with the Department of Revenue (Railroad Property Tax Division) at its Chicago Office, 160 North La Salle Street, Chicago, Ill. Provisions of the statute and the rules of practice and procedure adopted by the Department of Revenue shall govern the preparation and filing of such applications. STATE OF ILLINOIS, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHICAGO, ILL., December 24, 1963. [From the Southern Illinoisan, Dec. 28, 1964] PUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the Department of Revenue of the State of Illinois has determined the 1964 fair cash valuation of railroad property subject to its assessment jurisdiction, under authority of the Revenue Act of 1939, as amended. Original assessments have been made on the basis of fair cash valuation to which has been applied a statewide equalization factor of 50 percent. Fair cash valuation and original assessments by companies are set forth below: Chicago South Shore & South Bend RR. Co.. Chicago Union Station Co.... Chicago West Pullman & So. RR. Co.. Davenport Rock Island & N. W. Ry. Co.. Illinois Central RR. Co.... Illinois Northern Railway. Illinois Terminal RR. Co. Indiana Harbor Belt RR. Co.. Jefferson Southwestern RR. Co.. LaSalle & Bureau County RR. Co.. Manufacturers' Junction Ry. Co.. Manuafcturers' Railway Co.... Soo Line RR. Co... Missouri & Illinois Bridge & Belt RR. Co.. Missouri-Illinois RR. Co... 59,950,000 40,000 4,760,000 15, 500,000 58,040,000 1,480,000 500,000 28, 370,000 1,020,000 1,100, 000 1, 160, 000 29, 540,000 1,000,000 8,280,000 46,450,000 96, 670,000 1,460,000 13,460,000 13, 530, 000 60,000 2,380,000 7,750,000 29,020,000 740,000 250,000 14, 183, 000 510,000 530,000 580,000 14,770,000 500,000 4,140,000 23, 225, 000 48,333,000 730,000 6,730,000 6,765, 000 30,000 4,000 185,000 8,000 370,000 900,000 450,000 540,000 40,000 5,540,000 600,000 8,600,000 27,500,000 500,000 65, 990, 000 43,990,000 600,000 61,490,000 6, 640,000 1, 000, 000 160,000 14,500,000 44, 950,000 20,000 2,770,000 300,000 3,300,000 13,750,000 250,000 32, 993, 000 21, 993, 000 300,000 30, 745, 000 3, 320, 000 500,000 80,000 1,385, 000 900,000 7,250,000 9,460,000 5,805, 000 22,475,000 |