141 N.Y. 118, People ex rel. Thurber-Whyland Co. v. Barker
|Citation:||141 N.Y. 118|
|Party Name:||THE PEOPLE ex rel. THURBER, WHYLAND COMPANY, Appellant, v. EDWARD P. BARKER et al., Commissioners of Taxes, etc., Respondents.|
|Case Date:||January 23, 1894|
|Court:||New York Court of Appeals|
Argued January 15, 1894.
L. C. Waehner for appellant. The relator is organized under the laws of the state of New Jersey, and that state is, therefore, its domicile, and it is a non-resident. (Laws of 1855, chap. 37; People v. McLean, 80 N.Y. 259; B. C. L. Ins. Co. v. Com. of Taxes, 1 Keyes, 303; Parker Mills v. Com. of Taxes, 23 N.Y. 242.) This is the only statute regulating the taxation of foreign corporations for local purposes, and therein alone must be found the power and method of assessing and taxing them. ( People v. McLean, 80 N.Y. 259; Parker Mills v. Com. of Taxes, 23 id. 242.) The basis -- and the only basis -- for assessment and taxation under the act is on all sums invested in any manner in said business. ( People ex rel. v. Wemple, 133 N.Y. 323; People v. McLean, 80 id. 259; People ex rel. v. Com. of Taxes, 23 id. 224.) The same system of assessment and taxation prevails in the cases of foreign corporations, etc., as applies to and regulates the assessment of and taxation of residents. ( In re Swift, 137 N.Y. 84; People ex rel. v. Wemple, 133 id. 325.) The bills
receivable and moneys owing to the relator are not in law" sums invested in its business. (Laws of 1883, chap. 392; People ex rel. v. Wemple, 133 N.Y. 328.)
D. J. Dean for respondents. Under the scheme of the statute for the taxation of non-resident persons and corporations no deduction for debts from the amount of capital invested in business of the state of New York is authorized. ( People ex rel. v. Comrs., etc., 4 Hun, 596; Hoyt v. Comr. of Taxes, 23 N.Y. 224; Williams v. Bd. Suprs., 78 id. 561.) If, however, the relator is entitled to a deduction for its debts, as a resident would be, then the respondents were authorized to include in the capital invested in this state the sums due to it. (1 R. S. 388, 390, § § 3, 9.)
The relator complains of the amount of its assessment for purposes of taxation because, as is alleged, its indebtedness was not deducted therefrom by defendants. It is a foreign corporation having, according to the affidavit made by its president, a principal office at 76 Montgomery street, Jersey City, New Jersey, in which state it was organized under the laws thereof. Its office in New York city is stated to be at 116...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP