Ft Smith Lumber Co v. State of Arkansas Arbuckle, 394

Decision Date01 March 1920
Docket NumberNo. 394,394
Citation64 L.Ed. 396,251 U.S. 532,40 S.Ct. 304
PartiesFT. SMITH LUMBER CO. v. STATE OF ARKANSAS ex rel. ARBUCKLE, Atty. Gen
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Joseph M. Hill and Henry L. Fitzhugh, both of Ft. Smith, Ark., for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. John D. Arbuckle and George Vaughan, both of Little Rock, Ark., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit by the State of Arkansas against the plaintiff in error, a corporation of the State, to recover back taxes alleged to be due upon a proper valuation of its capital stock. The corporation owned stock in two other corporations of the State each of which paid full taxes and it contended that it was entitled to omit the value of such stock from the valuation of its own. This omission is the matter in dispute. The corporation defendso n the ground that individuals are not taxed for such stock or subject to suit for back taxes, and that the taxation is double, setting up the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was heard on demurrer to the answer and agreed facts, and the statute levying the tax was sustained by the Supreme Court of the State.

The objection to the taxation as double may be laid on one side. That is a matter of State law alone. The Fourteenth Amendment no more forbids double taxation that it does doubling the amount of a tax; short of confiscation or proceedings unconstitutional on other grounds. Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 106, 24 L. Ed. 616; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U. S. 129, 136, 137, 6 Sup. Ct. 645, 29 L. Ed. 830; St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 367, 368, 35 Sup. Ct. 99, 59 L. Ed. 265. We are of opinion that it also is within the power of a State, so far as the Constitution of the United States is concernied, to tax its own corporations in respect of the stock held by them in other domestic corporations, although unincorporated stockholders are exempt. A State may have a policy in taxation. Quong Wing v. Kirkendall, 223 U. S. 59, 63, 32 Sup. Ct. 192, 56 L. Ed. 350. If the State of Arkansas wished to discourage but not to forbid the holding of stock in one corporation by another and sought to attain the result by this tax, or if it simply saw fit to make corporations pay for the privilege, there would be nothing in the Constitution to hinder. A discrimination between corporations and individuals with regard to a tax like this cannot be pronounced arbitrary, although we may not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • Diefendorf v. Gallet
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • March 11, 1932
    ... ... BEN DIEFENDORF, Tax Commissioner of the State of Idaho, Plaintiff, v. E. G. GALLET, State ... art. 7, sec. 5. ( Winton Lumber Co. v. Shoshone ... County, 50 Idaho 130, 294 ... 493, 504, L. R. A. 1917D, 414; ... Fort Smith Lumber Co. v. Arkansas, etc. , 251 U.S ... 532, ... ...
  • Louis Liggett Co v. Lee 12 8212 13, 1933
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1933
    ...appropriate to achieving the end sought, and the difference in the instruments so employed vital. Compare Fort Smith Lumber Co. v. Arkansas, 251 U.S. 532, 40 S.Ct. 304, 64 L.Ed. 396; Quong Wing v. Kirkendall, 223 U.S. 59, 32 S.Ct. 192, 56 L.Ed. 350; Amoskeag Savings Bank v. Purdy, 231 U.S. ......
  • State Tax Commission of Utah v. Aldrich
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 27, 1942
    ...of Boston v. State of Maine had long been rejected in other cases. Kidd v. State of Alabama, supra; Fort Smith Lumber Co. v. State of Arkansas, 251 U.S. 532, 40 S.Ct. 304, 64 L.Ed. 396; Cream of Wheat Co. v. Grand Forks, 253 U.S. 325, 40 S.Ct. 558, 64 L.Ed. 931. We rejected it again only re......
  • Quaker City Cab Co v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 139
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1928
    ...of the Fourteenth Amendment were ap- plicable to the present case,' the tax must be upheld. More recently in Ft. Smith Lumber Co. v. Arkansas, 251 U. S. 532, 534, 40 S. Ct. 304, 64 L. 396), the validity of a state statute discriminating against corporations was sustained, and it was said th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT