Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

ferent classes of property, but at a rate, amount of the income tax must be so uniform throughout the commonwealth distributed each year. on incomes derived from the same class of property, and to exempt the property producing such income from other taxes. Pursuant to this authority, a law was enacted in 1916 (General Acts 1916, chap. 369), which it is sufficient to describe as taxing, with exceptions negligible here, income received from bonds, notes, money at interest, and debts due the person paying the tax; dividends on shares of any corporations not organized under the laws of Massachusetts; dividends on shares in partnerships, associations, or trusts, the interest in which is represented by transferable shares; and income derived from professions, employments, trade, or business. Intangible property, the income from which is taxed by the act, is practically exempted from local taxation.

It is obvious that it was the purpose of this act to reimburse the various taxing subdivisions until the year 1928, to the extent thought necessary to supply the loss which each would sustain by the withdrawal from its taxing power of the intangible property the income of which was taxed by the state, and that prior to 1928 any excess of the income tax fund over such requirements, and beginning with that year and continuing thereafter, the whole of that fund, should be distributed to such subdivisions in proportion to the amount of the state tax paid by each.

The validity of this act is not assailed. Prior to the enactment of this law, the taxing subdivisions of the state had taxed the real estate and tangible and intangible personal property, within their respective jurisdictions, for both state and local purposes, and the exemption from local taxation of intangible property, provided for in the act, necessarily resulted in an important reduction in their revenues.

The proceeds of the income tax thus provided for were distributed by temporary acts applicable only to the years 1917 and 1918, but in the year 1919 the act was passed, the validity of which is assailed in this proceeding, which provides, in substance: that the state treasurer shall pay to each city, town, and district, from the income tax [596] collected for the year 1919, an amount equal to 90 per cent of the difference between the average amount of the tax levied on tangible and intangible personal property therein in the years 1915 and 1916, and the average that would be produced by a tax upon the personal property actually assessed therein for the years 1917 and 1918 at the average of the rates of taxation prevailing therein in 1915 and 1916. In each succeed ing year, until and including the year 1927, the amount payable was reduced to an amount 10 per cent less than it was for the next preceding year. Any amount collected in any year prior to 1928, in excess of the required payments, must be distributed to the cities, towns, and districts of the state in proportion to the amount of the state tax imposed upon each for such year, and in 1928 and thereafter the whole of the

The petition in the case is one for mandamus, and the essential allegations of it are: that the petitioner, an inhabitant of the town of Brookline, in the years 1919 and 1920, derived income from intangible personal property and otherwise which rendered him subject to the provisions of the Income Tax Act of 1916; that the state tax in Massachusetts is imposed upon towns and cities in proportion to the value of the real estate and tangible personal property and polls taxable therein, without regard [597] to intangible property or incomes taxed; that a sum in excess of one million dollars was raised in the year 1920 by the taxation of the inhabitants of Brookline upon incomes derived during the year 1919 from intangible property located in that town and on other income earned therein, and that as great an amount will be in like manner raised in 1921; that under the distribution statute of 1919 there will be returned to the town of Brookline not more than $500,000 in the year 1920, and in each year thereafter a less amount until, in the year 1928, not more than $250,000 will be returned to it, while other towns, having greater real estate and tangible personal property valuation for taxation, will receive much more than their inhabitants will have contributed to the income tax fund; and that such payments may be used by the cities and towns receiving them, if they so elect, for the exclusive use and benefit of their own inhabitants for local and "proprietary" purposes, which would not in any degree contribute to the benefit of the petitioner, or of the inhabitants of Brookline, or of the citizens generally of the commonwealth. Upon these allegations a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondent not to distribute any of the income tax collected in the years 1920 or 1921, was prayed for.

Upon demurrer the petition was dis-, statement, it may plainly be derived

missed.

This statement of the case shows that it is admitted: that the Income Tax Act of 1916 is a valid law; that the contention is, only, that the Act of 1919, providing for distribution of the tax, is unconstitutional; and that this contention rests wholly upon the allegation of the petition that such amount of the income tax collected by the state from the plaintiff in error and from other inhabitants of Brookline as may be returned to any other subdivision thereof, may, if the subdivision so elects, be used for local or "proprietary" purposes such that no benefit whatever will accrue. from the expenditure of the tax to the plaintiff [598] in error or to other inhabitants of the town of Brookline, or to the inhabitants of the state in general. It is argued that from these conditions it must follow that the plaintiff in error and other inhabitants of Brookline are taxed for the exclusive benefit of the inhabitants of other subdivisions of the state, and that this violates the due process of law clause; or, if not that, the equal protection of the laws clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that therefore the proposed distribution of the tax should be restrained.

The relation of the power of the Federal courts to the taxing systems of the states has been the subject of much discussion in the opinions of this court, notably in the following cases: M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 428-432, 4 L. ed. 579, 606-608; Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514, 563, 7 L. ed. 939, 956; State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300, 319, 21 L. ed. 179, 186; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 105, 24 L. ed. 616, 620; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491, 497, 25 L. ed. 558, 561; Memphis Gaslight Co. v. Taxing Dist. 109 U. S. 398, 400, 27 L. ed. 976, 977, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 205; Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232, 237, 238, 33 L. ed. 892, 895, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 533; Merchants & M. Nat. Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 U. S. 461, 463, 464, 42 L. ed. 236-238, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829; Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson, 173 U. S. 592, 615, 616, 43 L. ed. 823, 831, 832, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 553; Travellers' Ins. Co. v. Connecticut, 185 U. S. 364, 371, 46 L. ed. 949, 954, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Phillip Wagner v. Leser, 239 U. S. 207, 220, 60 L. ed. 230, 237, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66.

While the nature of the subject does not permit of much finality of general

from the cases cited that since the system of taxation has not yet been devised which will return precisely the same measure of benefit to each taxpayer or class of taxpayers, in proportion to payment made, as will be returned to every other individual or class paying a given tax, it is not within either the disposition or power of this court to revise the necessarily complicated taxing systems of the states for the purpose of attempting to produce what might be thought to be a more just distribution of the [599] burdens of taxation than that arrived at by the state legislatures (4 Pet. 517; 15 Wall. 319; 109 U. S. 400; 185 U. S. 371, supra); and that where, as here, conflict with Federal power is not involved, a state tax law will be held to conflict with the 14th Amendment only where it proposes, or clearly results in, such flagrant and palpable inequality between the burden imposed and the benefit received, as to amount to the arbitrary taking of property without compensation,-"to spoliation under the guise of exerting the power of taxing." 134 U. S. 237; 173 U. S. 615; 239 U. S. 220, supra. For other inequalities of burden or other abuses of the state power of taxation, the only security of the citizen must be found in the structure of our government itself. So early as 4 Pet. 563, supra, it was said by Chief Justice Marshall: "This vital power [of taxation] may be abused, but the Constitution of the United States was not intended to furnish the corrective for every abuse of power which may be committed by the state governments. The interest, wisdom, and justice of the representative body, and its relations with its constituents, furnish the only security, where there is no express contract, against unjust and excessive taxation, as well as against unwise legislation generally." The application of this summary of the law renders our conclusion not doubtful.

The income tax involved is uniform in its application to all income within the description of the act of all inhabitants of the state, without regard to the taxing subdivision in which they may reside. It is collected by the state, and the capital value producing the tax is practically exempted from other taxation. The tax was authorized by the people of the state, and the act was given form by the legislature, for the purpose of correcting flagrant inequalities of taxation, resulting from what the supreme judicial court, in the opin

This presumption of legality is a sound and strong one, and is amply sufficient to prevail over the effect of the admitted allegation of the petition.

The case presented is clearly not one of that extreme inequality in taxation of which the Federal courts should lay hold, but involves rather a question of state policy, of a character which the people have been satisfied to leave to the judgment, patriotism, and sense of justice of representatives in their state legislature.

ion in this case, called the "coloniza- distributed to them. Every presumption" of wealthy owners of intangible tion is in favor of legality, in the absecurities in [600] towns and cities sence of evidence to the contrary." which had exceptionally low rates of taxation, "brought about by avoidance and evasion, legal and illegal, of the tax laws prevailing before the enactment of the Income Tax Law." Report to the senate and house of representatives of Massachusetts by "The Joint Special Committee on Taxation," January 31, 1919. The report just referred to was made after an elaborate study of the subject of the distribution of this income tax, in the progress of which largely attended public hearings were held in many cities of the state, and it recommended the law assailed, in substantially the form in which it was enacted. The plan of returning the tax to the various taxing districts in which those who paid it resided, which is so strongly urged in [602] STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Comargument, was carefully considered, and was rejected, as expensive and difficult,

The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is affirmed.

plainant,

V.

if not impracticable, of application, and STATE OF TEXAS, Defendant; the United

as calculated to ignore the considerations which led to the enactment of the law, and to restore the evils and inequalities of taxation which it was devised to correct. It is also apparent that this distribution law should not be considered as an isolated provision, but as an important part, which it clearly is, of an elaborate and involved system of state taxation, which would be seriously affected by the granting of such a writ of mandamus as is prayed for.

States of America, Intervener.

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 602.)

[No. 23, Original.]

June 1, 1921.

Order announced by Mr. Justice McKenna:

Upon application of A. E. Pearson, R. R. Bell, Susie Shaw, Georgia Darby, Mrs. John Mounts, Henry G. Beard, and the Silver Moon Oil Company, claimants of certain tracts or parcels of land purchased by Fred Capshaw from the United States of America under patent dated February 17, 1920:

Accepting as true, as we must, the allegation of the petition, admitted by the demurrer, that the local subdivisions of the state may, "if they so elect," devote the money derived from the income tax through the distribution provided It is ordered that the receiver be and for in the act assailed, to purposes he is hereby authorized and directed to which might not confer any certain ben- sink a well for oil and gas upon the land efit upon the plaintiff in error or per- described in said patent at such place sons in like situation, yet, it must be as the receiver shall select, provided said accepted, on the other hand, that it is applicants shall pay in advance from entirely clear that there are many pur- time to time, as required, the cost and poses to which these subdivisions may expense of sinking the same and bringdevote the money, "if they so elect," ing it into production. The said well which would be of such state-wide in- shall be operated by the receiver as he fluence that the plaintiff in error and operates wells on other lands in the those similarly situated would very cer- riverbed area, and he shall conserve and tainly be benefited [601] by the expend- dispose of the proceeds of the oil and iture of it. It must be said also in this gas as in the case of wells on other case, as was said by the supreme judicial lands in the riverbed area, and shall recourt of Massachusetts, in the decision imburse the said Pearson et al., out of of a similar case, Duffy v. Treasurer, 234 Mass. 42, 25 N. E. 135: "There is nothing on this record to justify the assumption that the several municipalities design to devote to other than public use any portion of the income tax thus

the net proceeds, for the moneys so advanced and paid by them for drilling the well and bringing it into production; the remainder of such proceeds to be retained by him, subject to the order of the court.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Complainant,

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Defendant; the United States of America, Intervener.

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 603.)

[No. 23, Original.]

June 1, 1921.

Order announced by Mr. Justice McKenna:

Upon motion of Luther Eoff, claiming to be the owner of an oil and gas lease upon a certain tract of 500 acres of land described in his motion, situate on the flood plain on the south side of Red river, in range 15 west;

It is ordered that the receiver be and he is hereby authorized and directed to sink a well for oil and gas upon the land described in said motion at such place as the receiver shall select, provided said applicant shall pay in advance from time to time, as required, the cost and expense of sinking the same and bringing it into production. The said well shall be operated by the receiver as he operates wells on lands in the riverbed area, and he shall conserve and dispose of the proceeds of the oil and gas as in the case of wells on lands in the riverbed area, and shall reimburse the said Eoff out of the net proceeds for the moneys so advanced and paid by him for drilling the well and bringing it into production; the remainder of such proceeds to be retained by the receiver, subject to the order of the court.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Complainant,

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Defendant; the United States of America, Intervener.

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 603, 604.)

[No. 23, Original.]

June 1, 1921.

Order announced by Mr. Justice McKenna:

Upon motion of J. R. Armstrong et al., and upon the assent of the receiver, it appearing that the receiver has in his hands a fund of approximately fifty thousand dollars, being part of the proceeds derived by him from the production of Receiver's Wells Nos. 157, 162, and 170, operated by him for said Armstrong and for one C. J. Benson, under whom he claims by assignment;

It is ordered that Frederick S. Tyler, Esq., be and he is hereby appointed a special master to hear and report to this court for determination the claim of said J. R. Armstrong [604] to have said fund turned over to him as purchaser of said wells; and said master shall hear and report on said claim and on all other claims that may be presented against said fund.

Said master shall have authority to issue process of subpoena to compel the attendance of witnesses, and it shall be his duty to give notice to all parties concerned, to fix the time and place of hearing, and adjourn the same from time to time if necessary; and he shall report all the evidence taken, together with his findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation in the premises, for the ultimate consideration and action of this court.

If, for any reason, the said Frederick S. Tyler, Esq., shall be unable to act as such special master, or to complete his duties as such, a special master to act in his place shall be named by the Chief Justice or the senior Associate Justice of this court.

STÁTE OF OKLAHOMA, Complainant,

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Defendant; the United
States of America, Intervener.

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 604, 605.)
[No. 23, Original.]

June 1, 1921.

Order announced by Mr. Justice McKenna:

Upon considering the fifth report of the receiver, filed herein May 26, 1921, it is ordered:

(1) That until further order all development work by the receiver (except as prescribed in certain other orders made this day) shall be confined to the completion of the wells in the riverbed area, about twelve in number, work upon which already has been begun.

(2) That the receiver be and he is hereby authorized and directed to collect, withhold, and impound three sixteenths of the gross proceeds of gas produced by wells within the receivership area from and after June 1, 1921.

(3) That the receiver be and he is hereby authorized to publish a notice in four daily newspapers, two circulating in Texas and two circulating in Okla

homa, to be [605] selected by him, re-, school sections abutting on Red river questing all persons having claims against owned by said state, in respect to which the receiver or against the property or it claims by riparian right the entire bed funds in his custody to present the same of Red river to the south bank, as said to the receiver within sixty days from the claim is set up in the original bill of said date of publication of such notice, ac- state, and answered by the United States companying their statements of claim in 2, subparagraph 10, of its amended with supporting affidavits and certified petition of intervention: or sworn copies of any documentary It is ordered that this cause be and it evidence upon which they may rely; is hereby set down for hearing as to and the receiver is directed to examine said special issues, and as to the claims and investigate said claims and supporting evidence, and he is hereby authorized to settle and discharge the same, if he can do so, upon a fair and equitable basis; and as to any not so adjusted and settled, he shall make a full report to this court at its next term, for such further action as the court may deem prop

er.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Complainant,

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Defendant; the United
States of America, Intervener.

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 605–607.)

[No. 23, Original.]

June 1, 1921.

Order announced by Mr. Justice McKenna:

It appearing that special issues have been joined in, this cause (1) upon the intervening petition of E. Everitt Rowell, claimant of riparian land on the north bank of Red river, and the answer thereto of the United States embodied in 2 of its amended petition of intervention; (2) upon the intervening petition of A. E. Pearson, R. R. Bell, Susie Shaw, Georgia Darby, Mrs. John Mounts, Henry G. Beard, and the Silver Moon Oil Company, claimants of riparian lands on north bank of Red river, and the answer thereto of the United States embodied in 2 of its amended petition of intervention; (3) upon the amended petition of intervention of the Burk Divide Oil Company (Consolidated) and others, placer mining claimants, and the answer of the [606] United States thereto, embodied in 3 of its amended petition of intervention; (4) upon the petition of intervention of the Mellish Consolidated Placer Oil Mining Association, a placer mining claimant, and the answer thereto of the United States embodied in ¶ 3 of its amended petition of intervention; (5) and as between the state of Oklahoma and the United States as to the

of any and all other interveners herein who may claim riparian lands on the north bank of Red river, or placer mining locations under the mining laws of the United States, on the 17th day of October, a. D. 1921.

Frederick S. Tyler, Esq., of Washington, District of Columbia, is hereby appointed as commissioner to take the evidence of the said respective parties with respect to said issues and claims, and report the same to the court, but without findings or conclusions. Said evidence shall be taken and closed on or before July 30, 1921. The evidence as to all said issues and claims shall be embodied in one record, but the evidence as to each issue or claim shall be set forth separately so far as practicable. Subject to the time fixed for closing said evidence, the time and place for commencing and proceeding with the taking of testimony, and the order in which the different matters shall be taken up, may be fixed by agreement of the parties, or, in case of disagreement, shall be fixed by the commissioner.

If, for any reason, the said Frederick S. Tyler shall be unable to act as such commissioner, or to complete his [607] duties as such, a commissioner to act in his place shall be named by the Chief Justice or the senior Associate Justice of this court.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Complainant,

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Defendant; the United
States of America, Intervener.

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 607.)
[No. 23, Original.]
June 1, 1921.

Order announced by Mr. Justice Mc-
Kenna:

It appearing from the fifth report made by Frederic A. Delano, the receiver heretofore appointed by this

« ForrigeFortsett »