Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

The decision in United States Glue, 435; Fargo v. Hart, 193 U. S. 490, 500, Co. v. Oak Creek, 247 U. S. 321, 62 48 L. ed. 761, 765, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 498. L. ed. 1135, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499, Ann.

Messrs. James E. Cooper and Hugh Cas. 1918E, 748, considered in the pre- M. Alcorn argued the cause, and, with vailing opinion of the

the Connecticut

Mr. Frank E. Healy, Attorney General court as a controlling authority in favor of Connecticut, filed a brief för defendof the constitutionality of the act, has ant in error: no application.

A tax upon net income, or a priviPeople ex rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Knapp, 191 App. Div. 262, apportioned by tangible property in

lege tax measured by net income and 181 N. Y. Supp. 32; Cream of Wheat and out of the state, must be sustained. Co. v. Grand Forks County, 253 U. S.

St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. 325, 64 L. ed. 931, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 558. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 59 L. ed. 265,

This court cannot rewrite the law. 35 Sup. Ćt. Rep. 99. Its unconstitutional features are inseparable; it is either all good or all bad. rules for apportioning subject-matter to

This court has many times upheld Meyer v. Wells, F. & Co. 223 U. S. 298, 301, 56 L. ed. 445, 447, 32 Sup. ct. a state, based on a single element or

group of elements. The unit-rule cases, Rep. 218.

while dealing with a different subjectMr. Louis H. Porter filed a brief as matter and for a different purpose, are amicus curiæ on behalf of the Alpha in point on the question of the adoption Portland Cement Company:

of a single element for allocation. A state cannot constitutionally tax a Union Tank Line Co. v. Wright, 249 foreign corporation doing business in U. S. 275, 282, 63 L. ed. 602, 607, 39 several states upon its entire net in- Sup. Ct. Rep. 276. come, including that wholly derived

The use of intangibles in a rule of from sources without the state.

apportionment would add greatly to the International Paper Co. v. Massachu- practical difficulties of applying the setts, 246 U. S. 135, 62 L. ed. 624, 38 rule. And it might very well be Sup. Ct. Rep. 292, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 617; claimed, upon the theory of the unitLooney v. Crane Co. 245 U. S. 178, 62 rule cases, that the intangibles in whole L. ed. 230, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 85; Fargo or in part would be assigned a situs v. Hart, 193_U. S. 490, 48 L. ed. 761, with the tangibles, and the result of the 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 498; Meyer v. Wells, rule of apportionment, therefore, be the F. & Co. 223 U. S. 298, 56 L. ed. 445, 32 same, whether tangibles alone were used Sup. Ct. Rep. 218; Pollock v. Farmers' or tangibles and intangibles also. Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. 429, 39 L. ed. Adams Exp. Co. v. Ohio State Audi759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673, 158 U. S. 601, fer, 166 U. S. 185, 223, 41 L. ed. 965, 39 L. ed. 1108, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912. 978, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 604.

Therefore a state can only tax so Business transacted in the state need much of the income of such corpora- | not be considered in the apportionment tions as is derived from its business in rule. the taxing state.

United States Glue Co. v. Oak Creek, The test of the constitutionality of the 247 U. S. 321, 62 L. ed. 1135, 38 Sup. Ct. statute in question is whether it is rea- Rep. 499, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 748. sonably designed to reach only so much

The plaintiff's brief completely ig. of the income as comes from sources in

nores the case of Shaffer v. Carter, 252 the state, and is therefore subject to U. S. 37, 64 L. ed. 445, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. the state's jurisdiction.

221. The statute in question is bad under this test because it is calculated to, and the commerce clause of the Federal

The Connecticut law does not infringe in many cases actually will, tax prop

Constitution, erty outside the state, and is not designed to limit the tax to income aris- u. S. 165, 62 L. ed. 1049, 38 Sup. Ct.

William E. Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 ing from sources in the state.

Meyer v. Wells F. & Co. 223 U. S. 298, Rep. 432; United States Glue Co. v. Oak 56 L. ed. 445, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 218; Creek, 247 U. S. 321, 62 L. ed. 1135, Adams Exp. Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 165 U. S. 194, 222, 227, 41 L. ed. 683, 748; Shaffer v. Carter, supra.

The Connecticut law does not deny 695, 697, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305; Adams Exp. Co. -v. Ohio State Auditor, 166 U. to the plaintiff the equal protection of S. 185, 222, 41 L. ed. 965, 978, 17 Sup. the law. Ct. Rep. 604; Wallace v. Hines, 253 U. Barrett v. Indiana, 229 U. S. 26, 29, 57 S. 66, 64 L. ed. 782, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. I L. ed. 1050, 1052, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 692.

167 65 L. ed.

are

Mr. Justice Brandeis delivered the profits of the company derived opinion of the court:

principally from intangible property, This action was brought by the Under the tax is imposed upon such proportion wood Typewriter Company, a Delaware of the whole net income as the gross recorporation, in the superior court for the ceipts within the state bear to the county of Hartford, Connecticut, to re- total gross receipts of the company. A cover the amount of a tax assessed upon corporation aggrieved because of a tax it by the latter state, and paid under assessed upon it may, after paying the protest. The company contended that, tax, apply for relief to the superior as applied to it, the taxing act violated court for the county of Hartford. There rights guaranteed by the Federal Con- it may show cause why it is not subject stitution. The constitutional questions to the tax, or why the tax should have involved were reserved by that court for been less. If the whole tax assessed is consideration and advice by the supreme found by the court to be proper, it enters court of errors. The answers to these judgment confirming the same. If the questions being favorable to the state tax is found to be for any reason un(94 Conn. 47, 108 Atl. 154), judgment authorized in whole or in part, the court was entered by the superior court, con- enters judgment for the company in the firming the validity of the tax. The case amount, with interest, which it is encomes here on writ of error to that court. titled to recover; and the state treasurer

Connecticut established in 1915 a com- is directed to pay the same. The deciprehensive system of taxation applicable sion of the superior court is subject to alike to all foreign and domestic corpo- review by the supreme court of errors, rations carrying on business within the as in other cases. Laws 1915, chap. 292, state. This system prescribes practical- part 4, SS 19-29; Underwood Typewriter ly the only method by which such corpo- Co. v. Chamberlain, 92 Conn. 199, 102 rations are taxed, other than the general Atl. 600. property tax to which all property locat- The Underwood Typewriter Company ed within the state, whether the owner is engaged in the business of manufacbe a resident or a nonresident, an indi- turing typewriters and kindred articles; vidual or a corporation, is subject. The in selling its product and also certain act divides business corporations into accessories and supplies which it purfour classes, and the several classes are chases; and in repairing and 119) taxed by somewhat different methods. renting such machines. Its main office The fourth class, "miscellaneous corpo- is in New York city. All its manrations, includes, among others, man- ufacturing is done in Connecticut. ufacturing and trading companies, and it has branch offices in other states with these alone are we concerned here. for the sale, lease, and repair of maUpon their net income earned during the chines and the sale of supplies; and preceding year from business carried on it has one such branch office in Conwithin the state a tax of 2 per cent is necticut. All articles made by itimposed annually. The amount of the and

which it purchases--are net income is ascertained by reference stored in Connecticut until shipped dito the income upon which the corpora- rect to the branch offices, purchasers, or tion [118] is required to pay a tax to lessees. In its return to the tax comthe United States. If the company car- missioner of Connecticut, made in 1916, ries on business also outside the state of under the above law, the company deConnecticut, the proportion of its net in-clared that its net profits during the precome earned from business carried on ceding year had been derived principal. within the state is ascertained by ap- ly from tangible personal property; that portionment in the following manner: these profits amounted to $1,336,586.13; The corporation is required to state in that the fair cash value of the real esits annual return to the tax commission-tate and tangible personal property in er from what general source its profits Connecticut was $2,977,827.67, and the are principally derived. If the com- fair cash value of the real estate and pany's net profits are derived principally tangible personal property outside that from ownership, sale, or rental of real state was $3,313,155.11. The proportion property, or from the sale or use of of the real estate and tangible personal tangible personal property, the tax is property within the state was thus 47 imposed on such proportion of the whole per cent. The tax commissioner appornet income as the fair cash value of the tioned that percentage of the net profits, real and the tangible personal property namely, $629,668.50, ving been within the state bears to the fair cash earned from the business done within value of all the real and tangible person the state, and assessed thereon a tax of al property of the company. If the net | $12,593.37, being at the rate of 2 per

some

as

cent. The company, having paid the tax, within the state, or a direct tax upon under protest, brought this action in the that income; for "the argument upon superior court for the county of Hart- | analysis resolves itself into a mere quesford, to recover the whole amount. tion of definitions, and has no legitimate

First. It is contended that the tax bearing upon any question raised under burdens interstate commerce, and hence the Federal Constitution.” Shaffer v. is void under § 8 of article 1 of the Fed- Carter, 252 U. S. 37, 55, 64 L. ed. 445, eral Constitution. Payment of the tax 458, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 221. In support is not made a condition precedent to the of its objection that business outside the right of the corporation to carry on state is taxed, plaintiff rests solely upon business, including interstate business. the showing that, of its net profits, $1,Its enforcement is left to the ordinary 293,643.95 was received in other states means of collecting taxes. St. Louis and $42,942.18 in Connecticut; while, Southwestern R. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 under the method of apportionment of U. S. 350, 364, 59 L. ed. 265, 272, 35 Sup. net income required by the statute, 47 Ct. Rep. 99; Atlantic & P. Teleg. Co. v. per cent of its net income is attributable Philadelphia, 190 U. S. 160, 163, 47 L. to operations in Connecticut. But this ed. 995, 999, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 817. The showing wholly fails to sustain the obstatute is, therefore, not open to the ob-jection. The profits of the corporation jection that it compels the company to were largely earned by a series of transpay for the privileges of engaging in in- actions beginning with manufacture in terstate commerce. A [120] tax is not Connecticut, and ending with sale in obnoxious to the commerce clause merely other states. In this it was typical of a because imposed upon property used in large part of the manufacturing business interstate commerce, even if it takes the conducted in the state. The legislature, form of a tax for the privilege of exer- in [121] attempting to put upon this cising its franchise within the state. business its fair share of the burden Postal Teleg. Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 U. of taxation, was faced with the imS. 688, 695, 39 L. ed. 311, 315, 5 Inters. possibility of allocating specifically the Com. Rep. 1, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 268, 360. profits earned by the processes conThis tax is based upon the net profits ducted within its borders. It thereearned within the state. That a tax fore adopted a method of apportionmeasured by net profits is valid, although ment which, for all that appears in these profits may have been derived in this record, reached, and was meant part, or indeed mainly, from interstate to reach, only the profits earned withcommerce, is settled. United

States in the state.

"The plaintiff's arguGlue Co. v. Oak Creek, 247 U. S. 321, 62 ment on this branch of the case," as L. ed. 1135, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499, Ann. stated by the supreme court of errors, Cas. 1918E, 748; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 “carries the burden of showing that 47 U. S. 37, 57, 64 L. ed. 445, 458, 40 Sup. I per cent of its net income is not reasonCt. Rep. 221; compare William E. Peck | ably attributable, for purposes of tax& Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165, 62 L. ed. ation, to the manufacture of products 1049, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 432. Whether it from the sale of which 80 per cent of be deemed a property tax or a franchise its gross earnings was derived after paytax, it is not obnoxious to the commerce ing manufacturing costs.” 94 Conn. 47, clause.

108 Atl. 159. The corporation has not Second. It is contended that the tax violates the 14th Amendment because, even attempted to show this; and, for directly or indirectly, it is imposed on

aught that appears, the percentage of income arising from business conducted net profits earned in Connecticut may beyond the boundaries of the state. In have been much larger than 47 per cent. considering this objection, we may lay There is, consequently, nothing in this on one side the question whether this is record to show that the method of apan excise tax purporting to be measured portionment adopted by the state was inby the income aceruing from business herently arbitrary,' or that its applica

1 Compare Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Atty., Auditor, 165 U. S. 194, 221, 41 L. ed. 683, Gen. 125 U. S. 530, 552, 31 L. ed. 790, 794, 695, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305, 166 U. S. 185, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 961; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. 41 L. ed. 965, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 604; L. R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 421, 430, 38 American Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Hall, L. ed. 1031, 1037, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1114; 174 U. S. 70, 75, 43 L. ed. 899, 901, 19 Sup. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Backus, Ct. Rep. 599; Union Refrigerator Transit 154 U. S. 439, 445, 38 L. ed. 1041, 1046, 4 Co. v. Lynch, 177 U. S. 149, 152, 44 L. ed. Inters. Com. Rep. 677, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 708, 710, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 631; St. Louis 1122; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Taggart, 163 Southwestern R. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. U. S. 1, 14, 41 L. ed. 49, 54, 16 Sup. Ct. 350, 365, 59 L. ed. 205, 272, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1054; Adams Exp. Co. v. Ohio State | Rep. 99.

169 no

[ocr errors]

.

on

tion to this corporation produced an un-, death, upon which neither the general propreasonable result.

erty tax nor an optional stamp tax had been We have occasion to consider paid for a fixed period, does not deny the whether the rule prescribed, if applied equal protection of the laws. under different conditions, might be ob- 'For other cases, see Constitutional Law, iv.

a, 4, in Digest . noxious to the Constitution. Adams Taxes — inheritance tax property tax Exp. Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 166 U. penalty. S. 185, 222, 41 L. ed. 965, 978, 17 Sup. 3. A property tax cannot be said to be Ct. Rep. 604. Nor need we consider the imposed by a state statute exacting an adcontention made on behalf of the state, and other obligations held by a resident

ditional transfer tax upon certain bonds that the statute is necessarily valid, be- decedent at his death, upon which neither cause the prescribed rule of apportion- the general property tax nor an optional ment is not rigid, and provision is made stamp tax has been paid for a fixed period, for rectifying, by proceedings in the su- merely because the existence of the statuté perior court, any injustice resulting from may induce the owners of such property to its application.

present it for taxation, nor can the law be [122] Third. It is stated in the deemed to impose a penalty merely because brief, doubtless inadvertently, that the the decedent's estate may, under it, be reassignment of errors includes the ob- quired to pay more for taxes than the de

ceased would have paid if he had presented jection that the tax was void under his property for taxation. the 14th Amendment; also the (For other cases, see Taxes, IV. in Digest Sup, ground that the company, a foreign

Ct. 1908.) corporation, had made large permanent investments in Connecticut before the

[No. 266.) Statute of 1915 was enacted. No such error appears to have been specifically Argued October 13, 1920. Decided Novem. assigned, and the objection was not

ber 15, 1920. pressed in brief or oral argument. It is clearly unsound. To the facts

ERROR to the Surrogate's Court of presented here the principle discussed

New York County, in the State of in Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 v. New York, to review a judgment enforcS. 400, 414, 54 L. ed. 536, 540, 30 Sup. ing a transfer tax, entered pursuant to Ct. Rep. 287, 17 Ann. Cas. 1247, has no the mandate of the Court of Appeals of application.

that state, which reversed a judgment of Affirmed.

the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department, affirming an order of the Surrogate's Court. Affirmed.

See same case below, 226 N. Y. 384, ANNA H. WATSON and Frederick Watson, 123 N. E. 758.

as Executors of the Last Will and Testa- The facts are stated in the opinion. ment of Charles W. Watson, Deceased, Piffs, in Err.,

Mr. Harold W. Bissell argued the

cause, and, with Messrs. Edward R. STATE COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE | Greene and William C. Cannon, filed a OF NEW YORK.

brief for plaintiffs in error:

Section 221b of the New York Tax (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 122–125.)

Note.-As to constitutional equality Constitution law - equal protection of of privileges, immunities, and protecthe laws - classification taxation. 1. A classification of property for tax:

tion, generally-see note to Louisville ation does not offend against the equal Safety Vault & T. Co. v. Louisville & protection of the laws clause of the Fed. N. R. Co. 14 L.R.A. 579. eral Constitution if it has a reasonable re- As to taxes on succession and collatlation to some permitted end of govern- eral inheritances-see notes to Re mental action. It is not necessary that Howe, 2 L.R.A. 825; Wallace v. Myers, the basis of the classification be deducible 4 L.R.A. 171; Com. v. Ferguson, 10 from the nature of the things classified.

L.R.A. 240; Re Romaine, 12 L.R.A. 401; (For other cases, see Constitutional Law, IV. a, 4, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.)

Rodman v. Com. 33 L.R.A.(N.S.) 592; Constitutional law equal protection State ex rel. Ise v. Cline, 50 L.R.A.

of the laws - discrimination - classi- (N.S.) 991; and Magoun v. Illinois fication - inheritance tax.

Trust & Sav. Bank, 42 L. ed. U. S. 1037. 2. The additional transfer tax of 5 per

As to nature of inheritance tax-see cent imposed by § 221b of the New York Tax Law, upon certain bonds and other ob- note to Re McKennan, 33 L.R.A.(N.S.) ligations held by a resident decedent at his / 606.

254 U. S.

V.

[ocr errors]

ex

V.

Law must be construed as a succession Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 42 L. ed. 1037, 18 tax.

Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Knowlton v. Moore, Re Sherman, 153 N. Y. 1, 46 N. E. 178 U. S. 41, 44 L. ed. 969, 20 Sup. Ct. 1032; Re Gihon, 169 N. Y. 443, 62 N. Rep. 747; Re White, 208 N. Y. 64, 46 E. 561; Re Penfold, 216 N. Y. 163, 110 L.R.A.(N.S.) 714, 101 N. E. 793, Ann. N. E. 497, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 783; Re Cas. 1914D, 75; Re Penfold, 216 N. Y. Hamlin, 226 N. Y. 415, 7 A.L.R. 701, 163, 110 N. E. 497, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 124 N. E. 4; Re Washbourne, 229 N. Y. 783. 518, 129 N. E. 898, affirming 190 App. Section 221b, if construed as a reguDiv. 940, 180 N. Y. Supp. 508.

lation of transfers rather than as a tax, Regarded as a succession tax, said is unconstitutional, and violates the section is unconstitutional.

14th Amendment to the Federal Consti. Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 tution. U. S. 232, 33 L. ed. 892, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 533; Gulf, C. S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 170 U. S. 283, 42 L. ed. 1037, 18 Sup. Ct. 165 U. S. 150, 41 L, ed. 666, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594. Rep. 255; Cotting v. Kansas City Stock

Mr. John B. Gleason argued the cause Yards Có. (Cotting v. Godard) 183 U. and filed a brief for defendant in error: S. 79, 46 L. ed. 92, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 30;

Separate schemes of taxation, withConnolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 out deduction of debts, are valid, even U. S. 540, 46 L. ed. 679, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. though compulsory, provided that all in 451; People rel. Farrington

the class are treated alike. Mensching, 187 N. Y. 8, 10 L.R.A.(N.S.) 625, 79 N. E. 884, 10 Ann. Cas. 101; U. S. 232, 33 L. ed. 892, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep.

Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 533; Merchants' & M. Nat. Bank v. 170 U. S. 283, 42 L. ed.

1037, 18 Sup. Ct. Pennsylvania, 167 U. S. 461, 42 L. ed. Rep. 594; Campbell v. California, 200 U. 236, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829; Clement Nat. S. 87, 50 L. ed. 382, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. Bank v. Vermont, 231 U. S. 120, 58 182; Re Pell, 171 N. Y. 48, 57 L.R.A. L. ed. 147, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 31; Amos540, 89 Am. St. Rep. 791, 63 N. E. 789; keag Sav. Bank v. Purdy, 231 U. S. 373, State, Dixon, Prosecutor, v. Jersey City, 393, 58 L. ed. 274, 282, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 37 N. J. L. 42; Southern P. Co. v. Den

114. ton, 146 U. S. 202, 207, 36 L. ed. 943, 945, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 44; Maxwell v.

A complainant must show that he has Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 539, 540, 63 L. ed. personally suffered an injury; the fact 1124, 1131, 1132, 40 Sup. Čt. Rep. 2; Pa- that others may suffer is not sufficient. cific Exp. Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339, The court will not speculate whether 351, 35 L. ed. 1035, 1039, 3 Inters. Com.

other persons may suffer. Rep. 810, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 250.

Tyler v. Registration Ct. Judges, 179 The 14th Amendment cannot be de- / U. S. 405, 45 L. ed. 252, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. feated by the mere choice of language. 206; Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U. S. 51, 47

Looney v. Crane Co. 245 U. S. 178, L. ed. 70, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 20; Hooker 62 L. ed. 230, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 85; Postal v. Burr, 194 U. S. 415, 48 L. ed. 1046, Teleg. Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 706; New York ex rel. 688, 39 L. ed. 311, 5 Inters. Com. Rep. 1, Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 160, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 268, 360; International 51 L. ed. 415, 422, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 188, Paper Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U. S. 9 Ann. Cas. 736; Southern R. Co. v. 135, 62 L. ed. 624, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 292, King, 217 U. S. 524, 534, 54 L. ed. 868, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 617; Western U. Teleg. 871, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Collins v. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 54 L. ed.Texas, 223 U. S. 288, 295, 56 L. ed. 439, 355, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; State ex rel. 443, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 286; Standard White House School Dist. v. Reading Stock Food Co. v. Wright, 225 U. S. Twp. 36 N. J. L. 66; Flint v. Stone 540, 550, 56 L. ed. 1197, 1201, 32 Sup. Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107, 147-152, 55 L. Ct. Rep. 784; Rosenthal v. New York, ed. 389, 411-414, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, 226 U. S. 260, 270, 57 L. ed. 212, 216, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312.

33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 27, Ann. Cas. 1914B,

71. Section 221b, if construed as imposing an estate tax, is unconstitutional, The exemption regarding dealers is and violates the 14th Amendment to the valid. Federal Constitution.

Re Romaine, 127 N. Y. 80, 12 L.R.A. United States v. Perkins, 163 U. S. 401, 27 N. E. 759; Re McCahill, 171 Cal. 625, 41 L. ed. 287, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 482, 153 Pac. 930; Herron v. Keeran, 59 1073; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. I Ind. 472, 26 Am. Rep. 87; People v.

« ForrigeFortsett »