276 N.Y. 208, National Cash Register Co. v. Taylor
|Citation:||276 N.Y. 208|
|Party Name:||National Cash Register Co. v. Taylor|
|Case Date:||November 23, 1937|
|Court:||New York Court of Appeals|
Argued October 12, 1937.
Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Oscar S. Cox, Edmund B. Hennefeld, Meyer Bernstein and Frank J. Derrick of counsel), for appellant. Chapter 873 of the Laws of 1934 does not invalidate the tax. ( Matter of McLean, 138 N.Y. 158; Hilton v. Fonda, 86 N.Y. 339; People ex rel. Brisbane v. Zoll, 97 N.Y. 203; People ex rel. McCollum v. Scannell, 56 A.D. 51; People ex rel. Knoblauch v. Warden, 216 N.Y. 154; Matter of Holzworth, 166 A.D. 150; 215 N.Y. 700; Matter of United Artists Corp. v. Taylor, 273 N.Y. 334; Matter of American League Baseball Club v. Taylor, 248 A.D. 873; 274 N.Y. 475.) The commerce clause does not invalidate the tax. ( Wiloil Corp. v. Pennsylvania, 294 U.S. 169; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. [U. S.] 123; Monamotor Oil Co. v. Johnson, 292 U.S. 86; Eastern Air Transport v. Tax Comm., 285 U.S. 147; Henneford v. Mason Co., 300 U.S. 577; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U.S. 275; Robbins v. Shelby Taxing District, 120 U.S. 489; Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U.S. 289; Crenshaw v. Arkansas, 227 U.S. 389; Western Oil Refg. Co. v. Lipscomb, 244 U.S. 346; Cheney Bros. v. Massachusetts, 246 U.S. 147; Ozark Pipe Line v. Monier, 266 U.S. 555; Bingaman v. Golden Eagle Western Lines, 297 U.S. 626; Southern Natural Gas Corp. v. Alabama, 301 U.S. 148; Anglo-Chilean Corp. v. Alabama, 288 U.S. 218; United States Glue Co. v. Town of Oak Creek, 247 U.S. 321.) The sales in question originated in New York city and were taxable under the Enabling Act. ( Grant v. Griffith, 39 A.D. 107; 165 N.Y. 636; International Text Book Co. v. Connelly, 206 N.Y. 188; Wilson v. Lewiston Mill Co., 150 N.Y. 314; Jones v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 158 Misc. 466; Matter of American League Baseball Club v. Taylor, 274 N.Y. 475; Matter of United Artists Corp. v. Taylor, 273 N.Y. 334.) The transactions taxed are not in interstate commerce. ( Wiloil Corp. v. Pennsylvania, 294 U.S. 169.)
The tax should be sustained. ( Superior Oil Co. v. Mississippi, 280 U.S. 390; Edelman v. Boeing Air Transport, 289 U.S. 249; Minnesota v. Blasius, 290 U.S. 1; Johnson Oil Co. v. Oklahoma, 290 U.S. 158; Hicklin v. Coney, 290 U.S. 169; Wiloil Corp. v. Pennsylvania, 294 U.S. 169.)
Chauncey B. Garver and Arnold E. Monetti for respondent. The imposition by New York city of a tax on the receipts from sales resulting from contracts made outside the territorial limits of the city is not authorized by chapter 873 of the Laws of 1934 under which the local law imposing the sales tax was enacted. ( Matter of United Artists Corp. v. Taylor, 273 N.Y. 334.) The receipts on which the additional tax was assessed were from transactions in interstate commerce and a tax on them would be a direct burden on interstate commerce. ( Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing District, 120 U.S. 489; Anglo-Chilean Corp. v. Alabama, 288 U.S. 218; The State Freight Tax, 82 U.S. 232; Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Lewis, 294 U.S. 550; Stewart v. Michigan, 232 U.S. 665; Dozier v. Alabama, 218 U.S. 124; Bingaman v. Golden Eagle Lines, Inc., 297 U.S. 626; Cheney Brothers Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U.S. 147; Crenshaw v. Arkansas, 227 U.S. 389; Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U.S. 622; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Texas, 105 U.S. 460; Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U.S. 289; Hovey v. DeLong Hook & Eye Co., 211 N.Y. 420; People ex rel. Smith Co. v. Roberts, 27 A.D. 455.) A tax which is a direct burden on interstate commerce is invalid, even though not discriminatory. ( Robbins v. Shelby, 120 U.S. 489; Ratterman v. Western Union Tel. Co., 127 U.S. 411; Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U.S. 289; Ficklen v. Shelby, 145 U.S. 1.)
The petitioner is a foreign corporation. It manufactures cash registers and similar machines in Dayton, Ohio. It is authorized to do business in the State of New York, and it maintains an office for the sale
of its products in New York city. By Local Law No. 24 of 1934 (published as Local Law No. 25, Local Laws 1934, p. 164) the city of New York has imposed a tax of two per centum 'upon the amount of the receipts from every sale in the city of New York of: (a) Tangible personal property sold at retail, ' etc. (§ 2.) The tax must be paid by the purchaser to the vendor. Each vendor is required to keep records, and to make a return to the Comptroller of his receipts and of the tax payable thereon and must pay to the Comptroller the tax imposed 'upon the receipts required to be included in such return.' (§ 6.) The petitioner keeps in the city of New York a stock of 'standard' machines manufactured by it in Ohio, and it has included in its return receipts from sales where delivery is made from its stock of standard machines, and it has paid the tax upon...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP