Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The bill charged the statute of Kentucky under which the tax complained of was levied to be in contravention of the constitution of the United States, and also of sections 171, 172, and 174 of the constitution of Kentucky. Similar averments to those considered in Adams Exp. Co. v. Ohio State Auditor (Sanford v. Poe)
Sections 171, 172, 174, and 181 of the constitution are as follows:
Sections 190 to 208 refer to corporations, the latter section reading: 'The word corporation as used in this constitution shall embrace joint stock companies and associations.'
Chapter 108 of the compilation of 1894 is divided into articles as well as sections, and may be referred to by way of con- [166 U.S. 171, 174] venience. There are some slight differences from the act of 1892, not material to be noted. The first article contains the general provisions relating to the assessment and collection of taxes 'upon all property.'
Sections 4019 and 4020 are as follows:
Article 2 relates to the assessment of property by the assessors, to whom every person in the commonwealth must give in a list of all his property under oath.
Section 4058 provides for schedules with interrogatories to be propounded to each person, 'with affidavit thereto attached, to be signed and sworn to by the person whose property is assessed.' The schedules contain a long list of [166 U.S. 171, 175] items, including all forms of tangible and intangible, real, personal, and mixed property; the enumeration being exceedingly minute. The first eleven items relate to bonds, notes secured by mortgage, other notes, accounts, cash on hand, cash on deposit in bank, cash on deposit with other corporations, cash on deposit with individuals, all other credits or money at interest, stock in joint-stock companies or associations, stock in foreign corporations.
The third article covers the assessment of corporations, corporations generally, banks and trust companies, building and loan associations, turnpikes.
Sections 4077, 4078, 4079, 4080, 4081, 4082, and 4091 are as follows:
The fourth article relates to the assessment and payment of taxes b railroads; the fifth to distilled spirits; the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth articles to the board of supervisors and the collection of taxes and the revenue.
Articles 10 to 12 relate to license taxes, special taxes, privilege taxes, and the like; and articles 13, 14, and 15 prescribe certain duties for designated officers touching the collection of the revenue. Article 15 provides for a state board of equalization to equalize the assessments returned to them from each county.
Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., for appellant.
W. J. Hendrick, for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
Section 4077 of the compilation of the Kentucky Statutes of 1894 provides that each of the enumerated companies or corporations, 'every other like company, corporation or association,' and also 'every other corporation, company or association having or exercising any special or exclusive privilege or franchise not allowed by law to natural persons, or performing any public service, shall, in addition to the other taxes imposed on it by law, annually pay a tax on its fran- [166 U.S. 171, 180] chise to the state, and a local tax thereon to the county, incorporated city, town and taxing district, where its franchise may be exercised'; and in the succeeding sections the words 'franchise,' 'franchises,' and 'corporate franchise' are used. But, taking the whole act together, and in view of the provisions of sections 4078, 4079, 4080, and 4081, we agree with the circuit court that it is evident that the word 'franchise' was not employed in a technical sense, and that the legislative intention is plain that the entire property, tangible and intangible, of all foreign and domestic corporations, and all foreign and domestic companies possessing no franchise, should be valued as an entirety, the value of the tangible property be deducted, and the value of the intangible property thus ascertained be taxed under these provisions; and as to railroad, telegraph, telephone, express, sleeping car, etc., companies, whose lines extend beyond the limits of the state, that their intangible property should be assessed on the basis of the mileage of their lines within and without the state.
But from the valuation on the mileage basis the value of all tangible property is deducted before the taxation is applied.
So far as the commerce clause and the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution are concerned, this scheme of taxation is not in contravention thereof, as already determined in Adams Exp. Co. v. Ohio State Auditor (Sanford v. Poe)
And, considered as a property tax, as, in our opinion, the prescribed exaction must be held to be, we regard it as in harmony with the provisions of the constitution of the commonwealth of Kentucky. The property, tangible and intangible, owned by corporations, is subjected to like taxation, and so the tangible and intangible property of individuals associated together in companies; and, while the provisions of sections 4077 and 4078 do not apply to all individual taxpayers yet reference to section 4020 and the schedule which must be returned by each taxpayer, as required by section 4058, demonstrates that individual taxpayers are also subjected to taxation on all their intangible property, whatever that may be, as well as on all their tangible property. As pointed out by [166 U.S. 171, 181] the circuit court, the mode of the assessment of the intangible property of companies, corporations, and associations mentioned in section 4077 and that of individual taxpayers is different, and the intangible property of such corporations, companies, and associations may, in some respects, differ from the intangible property belonging to individual taxpayers; but there is nothing in the statute which exempts any intangible property owned by any corporation, company, or individual taxpayer from taxation, or discriminates between them.
Section 174 of the constitution of Kentucky provides that: 'All property, whether owned by natural persons or corporations, shall be taxed in proportion to its value, unless exempted by this constitution; and all corporate property shall pay the same rate of taxation paid by individual property. Nothing in this constitution shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from providing for taxation based on income, licenses or franchises.'
But this does not prevent intangible property from being taxed, and the tax mentioned in section 4077 is not an additional tax upon the same property, but on intangible property which has not been taxed as tangible property.
We concur with the views of the circuit court that neither section 172 of the constitution nor any other section confines 'the levy of an ad valorem tax to tangible property; but, as decided by the Kentucky court of appeals in Levi v. City of Louisville (Ky.) 30 S. W. 973, it does require the levy of an ad valorem tax upon personal property as well as real estate, and this case decides that a license tax, which is not a property tax, cannot be substituted for an ad valorem tax upon personal property engaged in certain commercial pursuits in the city of Louisville. It does not decide that section 171 of the constitution, which declares that taxation shall be uniform upon all property subject to taxation within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, applies to taxation based upon income, license, or franchise. If there is any intimation upon the subject in this case, it is that taxation which is based upon income, license, or franchise may be classified by the legislature; and, as to licenses, they may be levied upon some [166 U.S. 171, 182] employments and occupations, and not upon others. If, however, we are correct in our construction of the Kentucky statutes, there is no ground for contending that there is a want of uniformity in the levy of the taxes against the defendant, even though section 171, requiring uniformity of taxation upon all property subject to taxation, applies to taxation based upon income, license, or franchise, and is given its broadest possible construction.'
The act received consideration in Henderson Bridge Co. v. Commonwealth, 31 S. W. 486, and the court of appeals of Kentucky, speaking through Grace, J., said:
The statute, thus construed, cannot be overthrown for failure to conform to the requirements of sections 171, 172, and 174 of the state constitution.
Decree affirmed.
Mr. Justice WHITE, with whom concur Mr. Justice FIELD, Mr. Justice HARLAN, and Mr. Justice BROWN, dissenting.
In its ultimate analysis, the legal principles by which this case should, in our opinion, be controlled, are those which were by us deemed decisive in Sanford v. Poe, 17 Sup. Ct. 305. It follows that the reasons for our dissent stated in that case are pertinent to this, and we reiterate them as expressing the grounds for our dissent from the conclusions reached by the court in this case. The facts here, however, so pointedly exemplify the force of the reasons for our dissent in Sanford v. Poe that we briefly state them. The actual value of all the tangible property owned by the express company in Kentucky was $36,614.53. This property was assessed by the local authorities for that amount, and the taxes duly paid. In addition, the value of the franchise was assessed at $ 1,463,040, a disproportion enormously in excess of the amount imposed by the state of Ohio, great as was that disproportion. The operation of the tax is additionally illustrated by a further fact. The tax imposed in Ohio, and held to be valid in Sanford v. Poe, considered with reference to the routes [166 U.S. 171, 184] traveled by the agents of the express company, was at the rate of $250 per mile, while in this case the tax levied is at the rate of $764 per mile.
Although the fundamental legal principles which, in our opinion, should have controlled Sanford v. Poe are the same in this case, there are yet material differences between the Kentucky and the Ohio statutes, which we think should take this case out of the ruling in the former case, even conceding that case to have been correctly decided. The tax here levied is a franchise tax. This is fully demonstrated by the dissenting opinion in Henderson Bridge Co. v. Kentucky (this day decided) infra. The levy here sought to be sustained, then, is a franchise tax, assessed on a joint- stock company which has no franchise, for the bill alleges that the express company is a partnership, and the demurrer concedes it. Under this state of law and fact, therefore, the effect of holding the tax now in question valid is to decide that a franchise can be taxed when there is no franchise on which to levy the tax. This can only be escaped by contending that the right of the express company to do interstate commerce business in Kentucky resulted from the assent of the state, and therefore the doing of such business was equivalent to accepting a franchise from the state. But to announce this proposition would overthrow the settled rule, so necessary for the perpetuity of our institutions and the free intercourse between the states, that the right to transact interstate commerce business by a person or corporation is protected by the constitution of the United States, and does not depend upon the mere grace of one of the states of the Union.
In addition to the clear distinctions, already noted, between Sanford v. Poe and this case, there are others resulting from the difference between the Ohio and the Kentucky statutes. The Ohio statute considered in Sanford v. Poe purported only to tax the tangible property within the state, but empowered the assessing board to consider its value as augmented by the use to which such property might be put. In other words, the Ohio law, as construed by the supreme court of the state, taxed only tangible property [166 U.S. 171, 185] within the state enhanced in value by intangible elements outside the state. We considered, in dissenting in the Ohio case, that this was a mere disguise, a distinction without a difference; but the court held otherwise. In this case, by the law in question, the mask is thrown off, and what we conceive to be logically the thin disguise under which the courts of Ohio supported its statute is not asserted to exist; but the Kentucky statute, in unambiguous and unmistakable language, imposes the imperative duty upon the assessing board to assess property both in and out of the state; that is to say, it leaves nothing to implication or to evasion, but declares in plain English that property in and out of the state shall be assessed.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 166 U.S. 171
No. 586
Decided: March 15, 1897
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)