Attorney Gen. ex rel. Treasurer & Receiver Gen. v. East Boston Co.
| Decision Date | 24 January 1916 |
| Parties | ATTORNEY GENERAL ex rel. TREASURER AND RECEIVER GENERAL v. EAST BOSTON CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Case Reserved from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.
Information by the Attorney General on the relation of the Treasurer and Receiver General against the East Boston Company. On reservation. Decree for plaintiff.
Henry C. Attwill, Atty. Gen., and Wm. Harold Hitchcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.
Mayberry, Hallowell & Hammond, of Boston, for respondent.
Information at the relation of the treasurer and receiver general to recover a corporation franchise tax from the defendant, a domestic business corporation. In a return made by it to the tax commissioner April 10, 1912, St. 1909, c. 490, pt. 3, § 40, under the heading ‘Notes,’ the corporation stated as one of its assets, the amount of $152,795.79. Of this sum $148,784 was secured by mortgages of real estate situate in the commonwealth, and it is agreed that the assessed value of this real estate exceeded the value of the notes and that the notes were securities which, if owned by a natural person residing within the commonwealth, would not be liable to taxation. By reason of the mistake of the respondent's treasurer, it did not appear in the statement that the notes were secured by mortgages on real estate. The tax commissioner had no notice that any of the notes mentioned in the tax return were secured by mortgages, and he did not deduct the value of the mortgage notes, $148,784. St. 1909, c. 490, pt. 3, § 41.
Between April 10, 1912, and September 20, 1912, the assessors of Boston, Winthrop and Revere reported to the tax commissioner that the value of the real estate owned by the defendant on April 1, 1912, in these municipalities, was $1,315,250, and that it was assessed for this amount. These returns were erroneous, the value and amount of the real estate owned by the defendant and assessed in these municipalities on April 1, 1912, being $1,499,450.
On September 20, 1912, the respondent had no knowledge of the report of the assessor to the tax commissioner and the commissioner, being ignorant of the error in these returns, gave no notice to the respondent under St. 1909, c. 490, pt. 3, § 45. On September 20, 1912, the tax commissioner determined the amount of the respondent's tax to be $4,417.99. When he determined the tax, he had no knowledge of the error in the return of the assessors and supposed the value of the real estate owned by the respondent in Boston, Winthrop and Revere to be $1,315,250. The agreed facts show that if the value of the respondent's real estate was taken at $1,499,450 and the total of the mortgages deducted (St. 1909, c. 490, pt. 3, § 41, cl. 3, and section 44), the franchise tax would be $1,914.81.
On September 20, 1912, the respondent received a tax bill for $4,417.99. It stated that within ‘ten days from the date hereof, said corporation may apply for a correction of said tax, and be heard thereon before the board of appeal.’ The respondent made no application within ten days from that date for a hearing upon the matter. St. 1909, c. 490, pt. 3, § 68.
While the Attorney General concedes that the mortgage notes should be considered by the tax commissioner as non-taxable securities of the respondent, he contends that the commissioner had no knowledge of such facts from the return, that he did not know it until September 30, and that the respondent is liable for the full amount of the tax.
[1] Whether this was an error of the tax commissioner in over-valuation, or a wrongful assessment in part, the remedy given...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nichols v. Comm'r of Corps. & Taxation
...other State courts.] It is clear that a tax, therefore, is not properly describable as a debt.' See, also, Attorney General v. East Boston Land Co., 222 Mass. 450, 452, 111 N.E. 167. And see Commissioner of Banks v. Highland Trust Co., 283 Mass. 71, 74, 186 N.E. 229, 231, where it was said:......
-
Lever Bros. Co. v. Commonwealth
...v. Commonwealth, 121 N. E. 510. The remedies given by the statute are expressly made exclusive of all others. Attorney General v. East Boston Co., 222 Mass. 450, 452, 111 N. E. 167. Section 70, in addition to establishing jurisdictional conditions precedent, is also in one aspect a statute ......
-
Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Commonwealth
...nature being afforded by G. L. c. 63, §§ 51, 71. Boston Manuf. Co. v. Commonwealth, 144 Mass. 598, 12 N. E. 362;Attorney General v. East Boston Co., 222 Mass. 450, 111 N. E. 167. The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of New Jersey, engaged in business in this commonwealth......
-
Chilton Club v. Commonwealth
...We do not imply that chapter 258 is generally available for the recovery of taxes wrongly assessed and paid. See Attorney General v. East Boston Co., 222 Mass. 450, 111 N.E. 167. And we do not pass upon the effect of the change wrought in chapter 64B, § 7, by St.1946, c. 564. None of the pe......