Maguire v. Trefry
Citation | 64 L.Ed. 739,253 U.S. 12,40 S.Ct. 417 |
Decision Date | 26 April 1920 |
Docket Number | No. 280,280 |
Parties | MAGUIRE v. TREFRY, Tax Com'r of Commonwealth of Massachusetts |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Richard W. Hale, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Wm. Harold Hitchcock, of Boston, Mass., for defendant in error.
Massachusetts has a statute providing for a tax upon incomes. Gen. Stats. Mass. 1916, c. 269. In the act imposing the tax it is provided:
'If an inhabitant of this commonwealth receives income from one or more executors, administrators or trustees, none of whom is an inhabitant of this commonwealth or has derived his appointment from a court of this commonwealth, such income shall be subject to the taxes assessed by this act, according to the nature of the income received by the executors, administrators or trustees.' Section 9.
The plaintiff in error is a resident of the state of Massachusetts, and was taxed upon income from a trust created by the will of one Matilda P. MacArthur formerly of Philadelphia. The plaintiff in error under the will of the decedent was the beneficiary of a trust thereby created. The securities were held in trust by the Girard Trust Company of Philadelphia. Those which were directly taxable to the trustee were held exempt from taxation in Massachusetts under the terms of the statute of that state. The securities the income form which was held taxable in Massachusetts consisted of the bonds of three corporations and certain certificates of the Southern Railway Equipment Trust. These securities were held in the possession of the trustee in Philadelphia. The trust was being administered under the laws of Pennsylvania. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held the tax to be valid. 230 Mass. 503, 120 N. E. 162.
Of the nature of the tax the Chief Justice of Massachusetts, speaking for the Supreme Judicial Court, said:
:
We see no reason to doubt the correctness of this view of the nature and effect of the Massachusetts statute, and shall accept it for the purpose of considering the federal question before us, which arises from the contention of the plaintiff in error that the imposition of the tax was a denial of due process of law within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, because, it is alleged, the effect of the statute is to subject property to taxation which is beyond the limits and outside the jurisdiction of the state. To support this contention the plaintiff in error relies primarily upon the decision of this court in Union Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U. S. 194, 26 Sup. Ct. 36, 50 L. Ed. 150, 4 Ann. Cas. 493. In that case we held that tangible, personal property, permanently located in another state than that of the owner, where it had acquired a situs, and was taxed irrespective of the domicile of the owner—was beyond the taxing power of the state, and that an attempt to tax such property at the owner's domicile was a denial of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling was made with reference to cars of the Transit Company permanently employed outside the state of the owner's residence. In that case this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People of the State of New York Cohn v. Graves
...relationship. See Lawrence v. State Tax Comm., 286 U.S. 276, 52 S.Ct. 556, 76 L.Ed. 1102, 87 A.L.R. 374; Maguire v. Trefry, 253 U.S. 12, 14, 40 S.Ct. 417, 418, 64 L.Ed. 739; Virginia v. Imperial Coal Sales Co., 293 U.S. 15, 19, 55 S.Ct. 12, 13, 79 L.Ed. 171; compare Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U......
-
Commonwealth v. Stewart
...integral parts of a local business activity. The present case, however, is not concerned with that principle: See Maguire v. Trefry, 253 U.S. 12, 16, 40 S.Ct. 417, 64 L.Ed. 739. 5 A distinction must be borne in mind between a tax on an equitable interest in property from which income is der......
-
Miller Bros Co v. State of Maryland
...7. Criz, supra, at 1—2; Hellerstein, supra, at 116, 408—409, 418; Jacoby, Retail Sales Taxation, c. VI (1938). 8. Maguire v. Trefry, 253 U.S. 12, 40 S.Ct. 417, 64 L.Ed. 739; Lawrence v. State Tax Comm., 286 U.S. 276, 52 S.Ct. 556, 76 L.Ed. 1102; People of State of New York ex rel. Cohn v. G......
- Wheeling Steel Corporation v. Glander National Distillers Products Corporation v. Glander
-
Does Kaestner Have Any Relevance for the Taxation of Trusts in California?
...17731.8. IRC, section 662(a).9. IRC, section 643(a).10. See Treas. Reg. section 1.641(c)-1(b)(2).11. IRC, section 641(c).12. (1920) 253 U.S. 12, 16-17.13. See Frimmer, Order Out of Chaos—Making [Half of] California's Trust Taxation System Work (2016) 25 Calif. Tax Law. 1; Frimmer, Order Out......