American Glue Co. v. Com.
| Decision Date | 15 May 1907 |
| Citation | 81 N.E. 302,195 Mass. 528 |
| Parties | AMERICAN GLUE CO. v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
BenJ. L. M. Tower and Samuel H. Pillsbury, for petitioner.
Dana Malone, Atty. Gen., and Fred T. Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
This is a petition under St. 1903, p. 452, c. 437, § 84, for relief from the exaction of a tax on the plaintiff, a domestic corporation. The petitioner's first contention is that there should be an additional deduction under section 72 (page 448) of this statute, on account of the 'property situated in another state or country and subject to taxation therein.' The value of all tangible property in other states has already been deducted; but the contention is that a part of the value of the corporate franchise is property situated in another state, within the meaning of the statute. This contention is not supported by the statute or the decisions. The corporate franchise, considered separately, is not property subject to taxation in states other than that which granted it. Louisville, etc., Ferry Co. v. Kentucky, 188 U.S. 385, 23 S.Ct. 463, 47 L.Ed 513. The value of the property in other states presumably is determined in reference to the use to which it is adapted and its relations to the business, and it may have a value as a part of a system that it would not have if taken away and disposed of for another purpose. The deduction of this value, under the statute, is very different from a deduction of the franchise to be a corporation and exercise corporate privileges, which is granted by the state where the corporation is established. This is recognized by the decisions relied on by the petitioner, as well as others. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Massachusetts, 125 U.S. 530, 8 S.Ct. 961, 31 L.Ed. 790; Massachusetts v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 141 U.S. 40, 11 S.Ct. 889, 35 L.Ed. 628; New York v. Roberts, 171 U.S. 658, 19 S.Ct. 58, 43 L.Ed. 323; Delaware, L., etc., Railroad Co. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U.S. 341, 25 S.Ct. 669, 49 L.Ed. 1077. The question in this part of the cas is, what is the true meaning of the statute? We think its provisions, considered together, and the policy of the law, so far as it can be ascertained by its language, do not contemplate a deduction on account of the franchise of the corporation as separate property in another state. There is no doubt of the right of the Legislature to enact a statute of this kind. Home Insurance Co. v. New York, 134 U.S. 594, 10 S.Ct. 593, 33 L.Ed. 1025; Connecticut Ins. Co. v. Com., 133 Mass. 161.
The other contention of the petitioner is that, under section 74 (page 449) of the same chapter, the amount 20 per cent. in excess of the value, as found by the tax commissioner,...
To continue reading
Request your trial