Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:51 PM
To: '[email protected]'
I am not sure if the above decision (in 1942) has been superseded. But, the above case also
has important implications regarding surplus funds. In the Court's opinion:
"The statute, section 87c of the 1935 Cumulative Supplement to the General Statutes
(now Section 7-344), after defining the duties of the board of finance with reference to the
preparation and submission of the annual budget, provides as follows: " Immediately after the
board of relief has finished its duties and the grand list has been completed, the board of
finance shall meet and, with due provision for estimated uncollectible taxes, abatements and
corrections, shall lay such tax on such list as shall be sufficient, in addition to the other
estimated yearly income of such town and in addition to such revenue surplus, if any, as may
be appropriated, not only to pay the expenses of the town for such current year, but also to
[**5] absorb the revenue deficit of such town, if any, at the beginning of such current year."
The term "such revenue surplus, if any, as may be appropriated", means cash on hand
which may be the subject of appropriation by the board of finance together with other estimated
yearly income, if any, including income from taxation.
Under this provision of the statute, in laying the tax it becomes the duty of the board of
finance to take the amount of its estimated expenditures for the ensuing year, plus its revenue
deficit, if any, and from such total amount, deduct the amount of surplus (funds on hand), if
any, and also deduct any other estimated income for the ensuing year which the town may
have and then, estimating uncollectible taxes plus abatements and such additions or
deductions, as the case may be, determine the amount required to be raised by taxation and
the rate of such tax.
"The words, "and in addition to such revenue surplus", used in the provision above
quoted, clearly indicate that it was the [*218] intention of the Legislature that when a surplus
existed to provide that the taxpayers should have the benefit of such surplus by including it in
the budget setup and deducting [**6] it from the amount of the estimated expenditures thereby
reducing the current levy upon the taxpayers' property." (Holmes v Beckwith, supra).
FYI,
Vir Santos
Note: On May 27, prior to the start of the BOF budget workshop, Mr Harrison
informed me that he had referred my questions to the Town Attorney.
Previous Page Next e-mail Back to Summary Page Home Page