__ A. __ (Conn.Super. 1947), 72593, Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. Walsh

Docket Nº:File 72593
Citation:__ A. __, 15 Conn.Supp. 205
Opinion Judge:COMLEY, J.
Party Name:Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. Walter W. Walsh, Tax Commissioner of the State of Connecticut
Attorney:Day, Berry & Howard, of Hartford, for the Plaintiff. F. J. DiSesa, Assistant Attorney General, for the Defendant.
Case Date:August 14, 1947
Court:Superior Court of Connecticut
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page __

__ A. __ (Conn.Super. 1947)

15 Conn.Supp. 205

Spector Motor Service, Inc.

v.

Walter W. Walsh, Tax Commissioner of the State of Connecticut

File No. 72593

Superior Court of Connecticut.

August 14, 1947

The Corporation Business Tax Act of 1935 was intended to apply and does apply to the plaintiff as a carrier engaged exclusively in interstate commerce, and it is unconstitutional and void as in violation of Article I, § 8, of the constitution of the United States. The taxes assessed against the plaintiff are invalid and may not be collected.

As applied to the plaintiff as a carrier engaged in interstate commerce, the act is not unconstitutional and void under §§ 1 and 12 of Article I and under Article II of the constitution of Connecticut.

The assessments made by the defendant were not illegal because they were computed on an improper bassis.

Memorandum of decision in action for declaratory judgment. Judgment declaring Corporation Business Tax Act unconstitutional .

Day, Berry & Howard, of Hartford, for the Plaintiff.

F. J. DiSesa, Assistant Attorney General, for the Defendant.

COMLEY, J.

The plaintiff was incorporated in 1933 in the state of Missouri. Soon thereafter it changed its principal place of business, originally in St. Louis, to Chicago. The plaintiff's business is a type of interstate trucking known as the " two-way haul." Under a permit from the interstate commerce commission it is authorized to haul freight in either direction between a defined zone in the midwest and another defined zone on the eastern seaboard. The eastern zone includes Connecticut.

In addition to terminals in St. Louis, Chicago and New York City, the plaintiff maintains terminals upon property leased by it in New Britain and Bridgeport. It owns no real estate in Connecticut. The only tangible personal property owned by it in Connecticut consists of office furntiure and equipment worth about $2000.

To carry on its interstate business the plaintiff uses about 85 tractors and 115 trailers. Most of these units are leased from the Wallace Transport Company, an Illinois corporation. All the stock of the Wallace Transport Company is owned by the same four persons who own all the plaintiff's stock, they being the plaintiff's two principal officers and their wives. The chief reason for the organization of the Wallace Transport Company lay in the advantage in lower rates that could be obtained by an Illinois corporation in the issuance of license plates by the state of Illinois. All the truck drivers are employees of the plaintiff.

When an eastbound truck carries a full truck load consigned to one customer in Connecticut, the load is delivered directly to that customer at his place of business. If the truck carries several shipments directed to two or more customers, it is unloaded at the Bridgeport or New Britain terminal, the shipments are sorted out and delivered by smaller pick-up truck to the different customers. Similarly, if a Connecticut shipper has a full truck load going west, the whole load will be placed on board one of the interstate trucks at the shipper's place of business and thence carried west. If the Connecticut shipper has less than a truck load shipment, it is carried by pick-up truck to the Bridgeport or New Britain terminal and there loaded together with other shipments on board an interstate truck. The pick-up trucks used by...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP