John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Boston v. Pink

Decision Date11 January 1938
Citation12 N.E.2d 529,276 N.Y. 421
PartiesJOHN HANCOCK MUT. LIFE INS. CO. OF BOSTON, MASS., v. PINK, Superintendent of Insurance.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Action by the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company of Boston, Mass., against Louis H. Pink, Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, wherein a submission was made by the parties for a decision of a controversy arising between them on an agreed set of facts, pursuant to provisions of Civil Practice Act, §§ 546-548. From a judgment of the Appellate Division, Third Department, 251 App.Div. 8, 296 N.Y.S. 20, in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Modified, and, as modified, affirmed. Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third department.

Frederick C. Tanner, of New York City, for appellant.

John J. Bennett, Jr., Atty. Gen. (Leonard M. Gardner, of Albany, of counsel), for respondent.

O'BRIEN, Judge.

Section 33 of the Insurance Law (Consol.Laws, c. 28) provides in substance that, if, by the laws of any state, an insurance corporation of this state shall be required to make payment for taxes greater than are imposed upon similar corporations of such other state by the laws of this state, all similar insurance corporations of that state shall be required to pay to the superintendent of insurance of this state for taxes an amount equal to the amount of such charges and payments imposed by that state upon a New York insurance corporation.

Plaintiff is a Massachusetts corporation. Pursuant to section 20 of chapter 63 of the General Laws of Massachusetts (Ter.Ed.), an excise tax of $418,136.09 would have been levied upon a New York corporation doing a similar business in that state. For the privilege of exercising its corporate franchise within this state during the year 1934, plaintiff paid to the State Tax Commission, pursuant to section 187 of the Tax Law (Consol.Laws, c. 60), the sum of $300,287. It also paid to the comptroller of the city of New York for the year 1934 the sum of $8,850.53. For the year 1935 it paid to the comptroller of the city of New York $18,170.76.

The superintendent of insurance of this state having levied upon the plaintiff a tax in the amount of $117,849.09 as the diference between the $300,287 paid to the Tax Commission of this state pursuant to section 187 of the Tax Law (Consol.Laws, c. 60) and the $418,136.09, the amount payable by a similar New York insurance corporation to the state of Massachusetts, plaintiff seeks to deduct from the $117,849.09 such sums as have been paid to the comptroller of the city of New York.

If the amount of $27,021.29, consisting of $8,850.53 and $18,170.76 paid to the comptroller of the city of New York pursuant to Local Law No. 9 and Local Law No. 18 of the city of New York (Local Laws, 1934, pp. 108, 129), constitutes taxes for the year 1934 required or imposed by the ‘laws of this State,’ then this sum must be added to the $300,287 paid pursuant to section 187 of the Tax Law and should be deducted from the retaliatory tax of $117,849.09.

The question is whether the taxes paid under the local laws are taxes required or imposed for the year 1934 by the ‘laws of this State.’ Since the sum of $18,170.76 paid by plaintiff pursuant to Local Law No. 18 of the year 1934 was paid for the privilege of conducting its business during the year 1935, this amount cannot be considered in relation to the tax imposed for the year 1934. However, the ultimate issue of law is whether the sum of $8,858.53 paid by plaintiff pursuant to Local Law No. 9 of the year 1934 as an excise tax for the privilege of conducting its business within the city of New York are taxes required or imposed by ‘the laws of this State.’ Local Law No. 9 was adopted by virtue of the authority delegated by the enabling act, chapter 302 of the Laws of 1934.

Chapter 302 of the Laws of 1934, which became a law April 25, 1934, is entitled ‘An act to enable, temporarily, any city of the state having a population of one million inhabitants or more to adopt and amend local laws, imposing in any such city any tax and/or taxes which the legislature has or would have power and authority to imposeand to limit the application of such local laws,’ and it empowers any city having a population of one million inhabitants to adopt local laws imposing in any such city any tax which the Legislature has or would have the power to impose and to make provision for the collection thereof. It also directs that a tax imposed hereunder shall have application only within the territorial limits of such city...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Insurance Com'r of State of Md.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 11, 1984
    ...Ky. 350, 25 S.W.2d 748 (1930); Commonwealth v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 369 Pa. 560, 87 A.2d 255 (1952); John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Pink, 276 N.Y. 421, 12 N.E.2d 529 (1938). That, of course, is not our concern Some of the difficulties in retaliating against local exactions in foreig......
  • In re David Brown Printing Co.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 6, 1941
    ...that they ‘were passed by the Legislature for a state purpose, public health and welfare’ (John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Boston, Mass. v. Pink, 276 N.Y. 421, 426, 12 N.E.2d 529, 531); that by such statutes the State has empowered the city of New York to act as its agent without, howeve......
  • Estate of Colwin
    • United States
    • New York Surrogate Court
    • March 8, 1979
    ...kindred statutes that they 'were passed by the Legislature for a State purpose, public health and welfare' (John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Pink, 276 N.Y. 421, 426 (12 N.E.2d 529)); that by such statutes the State has empowered the city of New York to act as its agent without, however, d......
  • Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1950
    ...Co. v. Coleman, 233 Ky. 350, 25 S.W.2d 748; Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. Holmes, 107 Mont. 48, 80 P.2d 383; John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Pink, 276 N.Y. 421, 12 N.E.2d 529. Compare Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Lowe, 354 Ill. 398, 188 N.E. 436, 91 A.L.R. 788. See 91 A.L.R. ...
  • 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