Sanford v. Poe
| Decision Date | 01 February 1897 |
| Docket Number | 339,399,400,340,338,Nos. 337,398,s. 337 |
| Parties | SANFORD v. POE, Ohio State Auditor, et al. (two cases). FARGO v. SAME (two cases). PLATT v. SAME (two cases). SEWARD v. SAME. 1 * * State Report Title: Adams Express Company v. Ohio State Auditor |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
required to file a return with the auditor of state, setting forth, among other things, the number of shares of its capital stock; the par value and market value (or, if there be no market value, then the actual value) of its shares at the date of the return; a statement in detailof the entire real and personal property of said companies, and where located, and the value thereof as assessed for taxation. Telegraph and telephone companies were required to return, also, the whole length of their lines, and the length of so much of their lines as is without and is within the state of Ohio, including the lines controlled and used, under lease or otherwise. Express companies were required to include in the return a statement of their entire gross receipts, from whatever source derived, for the year ending the 1st day of May, of business wherever done, and of the business done in the state of Ohio, giving the receipts of each office in the state; also, the whole length of the lines of rail and water routes over which the companies did business, within and without the state. Provision was made in the law for the organization of the board, for the appointing of one of its members as secretary, and the keeping of full minutes of its proceedings. The board was required to meet in the month of June, and assess the value of the property of these companies in Ohio. The rule to be followed by the board in making the assessment was that, 'in determining the value of the property of said companies in this state to be taxed within the state and assessed as herein provided, said board shall be guided by the value of said property as determined by the value of the entire capital stock of said companies, and such other evidence and rules as will enable said board to arrive at the true value in money of the entire property of said companies within the state of Ohiom in the proportion which the same bears to the entire property of said companies, as determined by the value of the capital stock thereof, and the other evidence and rule as aforesaid.'
As to telegraph and telephone companies, the board was required to apportion the valuation among the several counties through which the lines ran, in the proportion that the length of the lines in the respective counties bore to the-
entire length in the state. In the case of express companies, the apportionment was to be made among the several counties in which they did business, in the proportion that the gross receipts in each county bore to the gross receipts in the state.
The amount thus apportioned was to be certified to the county auditor, and placed by him on the duplicate, 'to be assessed, and the taxes thereon collected the same as taxes assessed and collected on other personal property,' the rate of taxation to be the same as that on other property in the local taxing district.
The valuation of all the real estate of the companies situated in Ohio was required to be deducted from total valuation as fixed by the board.
Provisions were made for hearings, and for the correction of erroneous and excessive valuations, as follows:
Section 167 of the Revised Statutes, referred to, reads thus:
'Sec. 167. He [the auditor of state] may remit such taxes and penalties thereon as he ascertains to have been illegally assessed, and such penalties as have accrued or may
accrue in consequence of the negligence or error of any officer required to do any duty relating to the assessment of property for taxation, or the levy or collection of taxes, and he may, from time to time, correct any error in any assessment of property for taxation or in the duplicate of taxes in any county; provided that when the amount to be remitted in any one case shall exceed one hundred dollars, he shall proceed to the office of the governor and take to his assistance the governor and attorney general, and in all such cases may remit no more than shall be agreed upon by a majority of the officers named.'
Instead of distributing the valuation as under the act of 1893, the state board, by the act of 1894, was to certify it to the auditor of state, whose duty it was made to apportion and certify the valuation among the counties.
In No. 337 the taxes for 1893 were involved; and in Nos. 338, 339, and 340, the taxes for 1894. These are appeals from the circuit court of appeals for the Sixth circuit. In Nos. 398, 399, and 400 the taxes for 1895 were involved. These are appeals from decrees of the circuit court for the Southern district of Ohio.
The original suits were brought in the circuit court to enjoin the certification of the apportioned valuations to the county auditors, as to 1893, against the state board; as to 1894 and 1895, against the auditor of state.
The circuit court (Taft, J.), on April 23, 1894, after a preliminary opinion, filed opinions in the case of W. U. Tel. Co. v. State Board, 61 Fed. 449, and in No. 637, Id. 470, holding the Nichols law to be invalid under the constitution of Ohio. On the 1st of May following the supreme court of Ohio decided that the Nichols law was constitutional and valid. State v. Jones, 51 Ohio St. 492, 37 N. E. 945.
Thereupon the circuit court reversed its ruling, and accepted the decision of the supreme court of the state, and Judge Taft filed a further opinion holding that the assessments were valid. 64 Fed. 9.
In all the cases the final decress of the circuit court dis-
solved the temporary injunctions which had been granted, sustained demurrers, and dismissed the bills.
The circuit court of appeals affirmed the cases taken to it on appeal. 37 U. S. App. 378, 399, 16 C. C. A. 305, and 69 Fed. 546; 16 C. C. A. 683, 69 Fed. 557.
The proceedings of the state board in making the assessments for 1895, and certain correspondence, are set forth in the records as if exhibits to the bills. The action of the board, relative to express companies, is thus given:
'The board having given each express company doing business in Ohio, whose property in Ohio is hereinafter assessed, opportunity to appear and be heard personally by the board, and having heard all companies which desired to be heard through their officers, agents, or counsel, and having carefully considered the facts set out in the returns, schedules, and supplementary statements of such companies, and all evidences of value and all matters bearing upon the question of the value of the property of the companies, which, in the judgment of the board, would assist it in arriving at the true value, in money, of the entire property of each of said companies within the state of Ohio, on motion, the state board of appraisers and assessors unanimously fix and determine the values of the property of express companies hereinafter named in Ohio, to be taxed therein, at the amounts set out in the following table:
The Adams Express Company.................... $533,095.80
The American Express Company................. 499,373.60
The United States Express Company............ 488,264.70"
This valuation was made July 24, 1895. On the 2d of August counsel for the companies wrote the auditor requesting to be advised of the assessments when made, in order that they might apply for a correction. On the 7th of August the secretary of the board informed counsel of the assessments. On August 10th, counsel wrote, asking 'upon what calculation, if any, the apparently precise amounts of the assessments, especially in the case of the express companies, are based, and how the figures are arrived at.'
The auditor replied, for the board, that 'the method pursued
by the state board of appraisers and assessors this year in assessing the property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Assessment of Kan. City S. Ry. Co., Case Number: 25038
...by the following authorities: American Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Hall. 174 U.S. 70. 43 L. Ed. 899, 19 S. Ct. 599; Sanford v. Poe, 165 U.S. 194, 41 L. Ed. 683, 17 S. Ct. 305; and In re Assessment of Western Union Telegraph Co., 35 Okla. 626, 130 P. 565. ¶74 No objection has been made to th......
- Ballard v. Mississippi Cotton Oil Co.
- Teche Lines, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of forrest County
- Baltimore & O.S.W.R. Co. v. Commonwealth
-
Implications of the Supreme Court's 1991-1992 state tax decisions.
...U.S. 354 (1982). (5) E.g., Pullman's Place Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18 (1891). (6) E.g., Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U.S. 194 (1897). (7) 254 U.S. 113 (1920). (8) 445 U.S. 425 (1980). (9) 447 U.S. 207 (1980). (10) 347 U.S. 340, 344-45 (1954). (11) Quill Corp. v. No......
-
The Slow-Me State: The Emergence of Internet Sales Taxation and Missouri's Anomalous Response: S. Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
...the license tax. Id. (15.) See, e.g., Sanford v. Poe, 69 F. 546 (6th Cir. 1895), aff'd sub nom. Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U.S. 194 (16.) 303 U.S. 250, 256-58 (1938). This case arose after a trade journal challenged New Mexico's statewide "privilege" tax aimed at publishin......
-
STATE DIGITAL SERVICES TAXES: A GOOD AND PERMISSIBLE IDEA (DESPITE WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD).
...Consumption, Capital Income, and Wealth, 68 TAX L. REV. 355, 375-82 (2015). (167) See, e.g., Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U.S. 194. 220-29 (1897); State R.R. Tax Cases, 92 U.S. 575, 608-11 (1876); Del. R.R. Tax, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 206, 231-32 (168) See Adams Express Co., 165......
-
AGGLOMERATION AND STATE PERSONAL INCOME TAXES: TIME TO APPORTION (WITH CRITICAL COMMENTARY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE'S COMPLAINT AGAINST MASSACHUSETTS).
...and the Prohibition on Extraterritorial State Taxation, 71 FORDHAM L. REV. 149 (2002). (26.) See Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U.S. 194, 228-29 (1897); State R. Tax Cases, 92 U.S. 575, 611-12 (1875); In re Del. R.R. Tax, 85 U.S. 206, 219-20 (27.) Container Corp. v. Franchise ......