City of Winchester v. Van Meter

• Decision Date: 17 March 1914
• Parties: CITY OF WINCHESTER v. VAN METER.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

164 S.W. 323

158 Ky. 31

CITY OF WINCHESTER v. VAN METER.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 17, 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clark County.

Taxation proceedings between the City of Winchester and N. P. Van Meter. Judgment for Van Meter, and the City appeals. Affirmed.

F. H Haggard, J. Smith Hays, and J. Smith Hays, Jr., all of Winchester, for appellant.

B. R Jouett, of Winchester, for appellee.

CARROLL J.

The only question in this case is: Was the appellee, Van Meter in April, 1912, a resident of the city of Winchester in the sense that his money, choses in action, and personal property were taxable in the city as of that date? The lower court ruled that he was not, and the city appeals.

The evidence shows, without contradiction, that Van Meter, in April, 1912, and for many years prior thereto, owned and conducted a large farm in Clark county, a few miles distant from Winchester. His farm had never been leased or rented but was managed and operated by servants and employés acting under the direct supervision of Van Meter. On this farm he maintained a furnished home, and this home was occupied by himself and family as a residence during several months each year. For a few years prior to 1910 he had been in the habit of removing with his family, which consisted of his wife and some children of school age, to the city of Lexington in the fall of the year and remaining there until spring or nearly summer, for the purpose of enabling his children to attend school in Lexington. When school closed he would return, in company with his family, to his farm. In the fall of 1910 he rented a furnished house in Winchester in which he and his family lived until the spring or summer of 1911, during which time his children attended school in Winchester. At the close of school he returned with his family to his farm and lived there until the fall of 1911, when he again desired to take his family to Winchester in order that his children might more conveniently attend school. Not being able at this time to rent a house in which to live during the school period, he purchased a house in Winchester and furnished it, and in this house he and his family lived from some time in the fall of 1911 until the beginning of summer or close of the school year in 1912, when they returned to his farm. While he lived in Winchester, as well as in Lexington, it was his habit to go to the farm nearly every day for the purpose of superintending its management. He testifies that he never intended to take up his permanent residence in Winchester or to have a permanent residence at any other place than his farm, and that, when he left the farm under the circumstances and for the reasons stated, it was always with the intention to return to it. It further appears that in these years all of his choses in action and personal property were listed for assessment in the district in which his farm was located, and in this precinct he always voted. Under this state of facts, we think all of the choses in action and personal property owned by Van Meter in April, 1912, had a situs for taxation at his home in the country. He was merely a temporary resident of Winchester. He had never abandoned his home in the country, and when temporarily absent always had in mind the intention to return, and did return when the reasons or conditions that induced temporary absence had ended. Nor is there any ground to suspect that in claiming his country home as his permanent residence he was acting in bad faith or attempting to evade the rate of taxation in Winchester, which was higher than the rate of taxation in the country.

A man may rent or own and occupy at different times during the year and for a part of each year as many homes as he chooses to live in, but only one of these can be regarded as his residence for purposes of taxation, and generally that one will be treated as his permanent home...