Michigan Trust Co. v. People of State of Michigan, 5745.

• Decision Date: 08 October 1931
• Docket Number: No. 5745.,5745.
• Citation: 52 F.2d 842
• Parties: MICHIGAN TRUST CO. v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF MICHIGAN.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

52 F.2d 842 (1931)

MICHIGAN TRUST CO. v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF MICHIGAN.

No. 5745.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

October 8, 1931.

B. P. Merrick, of Grand Rapids, Mich. (Travis, Merrick, Johnson & McCobb, of Grand Rapids, Mich., on the brief), for appellant.

Charles Rubiner, of Detroit, Mich. (Wilber M. Brucker, of Lansing, Mich., on the brief), for appellee.

Before DENISON, HICKS, and HICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judges.

HICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judge.

On February 9, 1926, appellant was appointed receiver for the Worden Grocer Company, a Michigan corporation, and operated the business under orders of the court until December 30, 1929, at which time all mercantile assets were sold. The only question presented upon this appeal is whether during this period of operation the receiver became obligated, annually, to pay the so-called Michigan franchise tax, for or on behalf of the Worden Grocer Company, which taxes had not been assessed at the time of the appointment of the receiver but were subsequently levied "for the privilege of exercising its franchise and of transacting its business within this state." Section 4, Act No. 85, Public Acts of 1921.

Although measured by the amount of the corporation's "paid-up capital and surplus," the tax is obviously not a tax upon the property of the corporation, but an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business in corporate form. Educational Films Corp. v. Ward, 282 U. S. 379, 51 S. Ct. 170, 75 L. Ed. 400; In re Detroit Properties Corp. et al. (decided June 1, 1931) 254 Mich. 523, 236 N. W. 850. In the decision last cited practically all of the authorities upon our main issue are collected, and it would seem useless to review them here in detail, although we shall, of course, refer to many, and shall express our views as to their proper classification.

In re Detroit Properties Corporation also recognizes that a proper decision of this issue depends upon whether the receiver, by operating the business, exercised or used any of the franchises of the corporation.¹ This is manifestly the proper criterion to apply. If he did, liability to the tax would be the liability of the receiver and the fee must be paid by him. If he did not use any of the franchises of the corporation, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to justify the imposition of a tax against the receiver, as such. It is true that the corporation itself might remain liable to an annual tax upon the franchise "to be" a corporation, or even upon the franchise "to do" business in corporate form, until the corporation was actually dissolved, a distinction given much weight by the Supreme Court of Michigan, but the receiver takes the property charged only with the debts and liabilities of the corporation, liquidated or unliquidated, which exist at the time of his appointment. It would be immaterial in every case whether the corporation might be held independently liable for taxes thereafter accruing, except and unless the properties or some part thereof were subsequently returned to it or a surplus was distributable to stockholders. Otherwise there would be nothing from which the tax could be paid. The corporation would be but an empty shell.

Relying upon the supposed distinction between a tax upon the "privilege" of exercising the franchise "to do," and a tax upon the franchise "to be," the opinion in Re Detroit Properties Corporation concludes that inasmuch as a receiver normally may conduct only such business as the corporation was theretofore authorized by charter to transact, such receiver is exercising the corporation's franchise "to do." Compare, also, In the Matter of George Mather's Sons Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 607, 30 A. 321. This would seem a non sequitur where the corporation had been engaged in purely mercantile pursuits, "for franchises are special privileges conferred by government upon individuals, and which do not belong to the citizens of the country, generally, of common right." Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519, 595, 10 L. Ed. 274. A receiver "is a mere arm of the court appointing him." Converse v. Hamilton, 224 U. S. 243, 257, 32 S. Ct. 415, 418, 56 L. Ed. 749, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1292. "Immediately upon such appointment and after the qualification of the receiver, the property passed into the custody of the law, and thenceforward its administration was wholly under the control of the court by its officer or creature." Atlantic Trust Co. v. Chapman, 208 U. S. 360, 370, 28 S. Ct. 406, 408, 52 L. Ed. 528, 13 Ann. Cas. 1155; Booth v. Clark, 17 How. 322, 331, 15 L. Ed. 164. Not only in the case of mercantile corporations is the franchise "to do" inseparable from the franchise "to be," and necessarily implied from a grant of the latter franchise, and the distinction therefore somewhat vague, but no good reason appears in such a case why the receiver may not perform, under direction of the court, any act which might be performed by any other citizen, in total disregard of the corporate capacity of the former possessor of the property, and without any reliance whatever upon its franchises. The property is no longer under the control of the corporation. The court and the receiver need no grant from the state of "special privileges" to effect a disposition of such property in accordance with the rules of law and equity. The limitation that the receiver may normally transact only such business as is authorized by the corporate charter arises from the implied contract between the corporation and its stockholders that the money invested shall be used only for such purposes, not from any dependence by the court upon the grant of the powers enumerated by the charter.

The suggested distinction is well enough in the case of a public utility. "No private person can establish a public highway, or a public ferry, or railroad, or charge tolls for the use of the same, without authority from the legislature, direct or derived." California v. Pacific R. Co., 127 U. S. 1, 40, 8 S. Ct. 1073, 1081, 32 L. Ed. 150. Such a franchise is not included in the simple grant under general laws of the right to be a corporation. It is separate and apart from the franchise "to be." Thus, when a receiver is appointed for such public utility, and such receiver proceeds to operate the business, in a very accurate sense he is using the franchise "to do" formerly exercised by the corporation. This is quite plainly suggested by some of the decisions involving railroad or other public utility receiverships. Collector of Taxes v. Bay State St. Ry., 234 Mass. 336, 125 N. E. 614; N. Y. Terminal Co. v. Gaus, 204 N. Y. 512, 516, 98 N. E. 11; Armstrong, Receiver, v. Emmerson, Sec'ty of State, 300 Ill. 54, 132 N. E. 768, 18 A. L. R. 693; Phila. & R. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 104 Pa. 80. It is the proper ground, we think, upon which other similar cases should have been decided, although both groups are often rather loosely cited as authority for the proposition that a franchise tax is payable wherever the receiver continues to operate the business, regardless of its nature. Compare Bright v. Arkansas, 249 F. 950 (C. C. A. 8); State v. Bradley, 207 Ala. 677, 93 So. 595, 26 A. L. R. 421; Central Trust Co. v. N. Y., C. & N. R. Co., 110 N. Y. 250, 18 N. E. 92, 1 L. R. A. 260.

Several other lines of authority, clearly distinguishable in principle, are also relied upon by the appellee. In McFarland v. Hurley, 286 F. 365 (C. C. A. 5) and Liberty Central Trust Co. v. Gilliland Oil Co., 279 F. 432 (D. C. La.), corporation franchise taxes, as such, were not involved. An oil severance tax was imposed by statute. Obviously, if the severance be made by a receiver, such receiver is directly and primarily liable for the payment of the tax. The question here presented was not there involved. In U. S. Car Co. Case, 60 N. J. Eq. 514, 43 A. 673, 674, the corporation is held bound to...