Alderman v. Wells

• Decision Date: 12 April 1910
• Citation: 85 S.C. 507,67 S.E. 781
• Parties: ALDERMAN v. WELLS, County Treasurer.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

67 S.E. 781
85 S.C. 507

ALDERMAN
v.
WELLS, County Treasurer.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

April 12, 1910.

1. Constitutional Law (§ 283^*) — Income Tax—Due Process of Law.

Civ. Code 1902, §§ 325-331, providing for a graduated tax on incomes, held not unconstitutional as taking property without due process of law, forbidden by Const. U. S. Amend. 14, or Const, art. 1, § 5.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. § 892; Dec. Dig. § 283.*J

2. Constitutional Law (§ 229*) — Income Tax—Equal Protection of the Law.

Civ. Code 1902, §§ 325-331, placing a graduated tax on incomes, is not unconstitutional as denying equal protection of the laws required by Const. U. S. Amend. 14, since the state Legislature has the right to make reasonable classifications of persons and property for public purposes, providing that it bears reasonable relation to the purposes to be effected; and, if the constituents of each class are all treated alike under similar circumstances and conditions, the rule of equal protection of the law is satisfied.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. § 685; Dec. Dig. § 229.*]

3. Taxation (§ 54*)—Income Tax—Uniform Taxation—Exceptions.

Civ. Code 1902, §§ 325-331, providing for a graduated tax on incomes, are not in violation of Const, art. 10, § 1, requiring the Legislature to prescribe regulations to secure a just valuation for taxation for all property, but permitting the General Assembly to provide for a graduated tax on incomes, since taxes on incomes are excepted from the requirement of a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation of all property.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. § 128; Dec. Dig. § 54.*]

4. Taxation (§ 47*)—Double Taxation — Power of Taxation.

There is no constitutional inhibition against double taxation, and in the absence of constitutional restriction, the power of the Legislature to tax is limited only by its own discretion and its responsibility to its constituents; the power to tax being an inherent right of sovereignty, limited only by its necessities.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 104-114; Dec. Dig. § 47.*]

5. Taxation (§ 54*)—Income Tax—Expenses of State—Annual Levy.

Civ. Code 1902, §§ 325-331, providing for a graduated tax on incomes, are not in violation of Const, art. 10. § 2, providing that the General Assembly shall provide for an annual tax sufficient to defray the estimated expenses of the state for a year, as attempting to provide for taxation for more than one year, regardless of the estimated expenses of the state for years in which it is collected, since the tax is levied annually, and is applied to the expense of the state in the year in which it is collected.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Taxation, Dec. Dig. § 54.*]

6. Taxation (§ 298*)—Annual Expenses of State—Sources of Income—Income Tax. The courts are bound to assume that the Legislature, in estimating the annual expenses of the state, takes into consideration all the sources of income to the state, including the income tax, and fixes the general levy accordingly.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Taxation, Dec. Dig. § 298.*]

7. Taxation (§ 37*)—Income Tax—Title of Act—Object.

Const, art. § 10, § 3, provides that no tax shall be levied except in pursuance of a law which shall distinctly state the object of the same, to which object the tax shall be applied. The title of Act March 5, 1897 (22 St. at Large, p. 529; Civ. Code 1902, §§ 325-331), is "An act to raise revenue for the support of the state government by the levy and collection of a tax on income." Held, that the act is not in violation of Const, art. 10, § 3, since it distinctly states the object to which the tax shall be applied.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Taxation, Dec. Dig. § 37.*]

8. Taxation (§ 58*)—Income Tax—Special Tax

Supply Act Feb. 18, 1905 (24 St. at Large p. 993) § 5, requires county auditors and treasurers to collect taxes levied under its provisions, and forbids their collecting any other tax except, among others, such special tax as is authorized under any act or joint resolution of the General Assembly. Held, that the income tax provided for by Act March 5, 1897 (22 St. at Large, p. 529; Civ. Code 1902, §§ 325-331), is a special tax within section 5 of the supply act. Hence the act providing for the income tax was not repealed.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Taxation, Dec. Dig. § 58.*]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Clarendon County; R. C. Watts, Judge.

Action by D. W. Alderman against L. L. Wells, as Treasurer of Clarendon County. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Charlton Du Rant, for appellant.

J. Fraser Lyon, Atty. Gen., and J. H. Lesesne, for respondent.

HYDRICK, J. The plaintiff paid his income tax for the year 1905, under protest, and brought this action to recover it back, under the provisions of section 413 of the Civil Code of 1902. He alleges that the act which authorized the levy and collection of the tax is unconstitutional, because it denies to him the equal protection of the laws, and due process of law, in that: (1) Incomes under $2,500 are not taxed, and incomes over said amount are taxed, this being an arbitrary and unreasonable classification, and not being founded on the said income supporting a family, or being used in any particular manner or by any class of persons.

[67 S.E. 782]

(2) That incomes less than $5,000 pay a tax of 1 per cent., and incomes from $10,000 to $15,000 pay a tax of 2 1/2 per cent. (3) That said tax includes all natural persons, and excludes all corporations. (4) That nearly all of plaintiff's income for the year for which the said tax was assessed was derived...