Bridgewater Mfg. Co v. Funkhouser

• Decision Date: 20 November 1913
• Citation: 79 S.E. 1074,115 Va. 176
• Parties: BRIDGEWATER MFG. CO. v. FUNKHOUSER, Revenue Com'r.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

79 S.E. 1074

(115 Va. 176)

BRIDGEWATER MFG. CO.

v.FUNKHOUSER, Revenue Com'r.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Nov. 20, 1913.

1. Taxation (§ 319*)—Assessment—Irregularities.

One whose property is liable to assessment for taxes may not evade payment for errors, omissions, or irregularities in the assessment thereof which do net prejudice his rights.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 514, 527-529, 532-534; Dec. Dig. § 319.*]

2. Taxation (§ 378*)—Property Subject to Tax—Miller—Manufacturer—Capital.

Under Code 1904, p. 2195, § 8, schedule C, providing for the taxation of all capital of incorporated joint-stock companies not otherwise taxed, that when taxed in Virginia the shares of stock in the hands of individual stockholders shall riot be further taxed for state purposes, and that real estate belonging to such companies shall not be held to be cap-ital, but shall be listed and taxed as property and not as capital, etc., capital employed in the business of a miller or other manufacturer is subject to taxation.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 626-628, 632; Dec. Dig. § 378.*]

3. Taxation (§ 378*)—Property Subject to Tax — Corporate Capital — Definition — "Capital."

Code 1904, p. 2195, § 8, schedule C, sub-sec. 3, provides that the capital of incorporated joint-stock companies not otherwise taxed shall be assessed, and subsection 4 provides for the taxation of capital of individuals invested in any business not otherwise taxed, and that all solvent claims contracted during the preceding year shall be held to be capital in such business and shall be taxed as such. Held, that the word "capital" was used in subsections 3 and 4 to signify money and other property adventured in the business, whether borrowed or not, and was not limited to the original capital paid in by the shareholders on purchase of stock, less the amount invested in real estate and money borrowed by the company to be used in conducting its business (citing Words and Phrases, vol. 1, pp. 954-958; vol. 8, p. 7595).

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 626-628, 632; Dec. Dig. § 378.*]

Error to Circuit Court, Rockingham County.

Proceeding by the Bridgewater Manufacturing Company against one Funkhouser, as Commissioner of the Revenue. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Conrad & Conrad, of Harrisonburg, for plaintiff in error.

The Attorney General, for defendant in error.

HARRISON, J. This proceeding was instituted in the circuit court of Rockingham county by the Bridgewater Manufacturing Company to have corrected an alleged erroneous assessment of taxes imposed upon it, which relief was denied by the circuit court.

The record shows that the complainant is a corporation, with its chief office and place of business located in Bridgewater, Rockingham county. The chief business of the company is the operation of two flour mills and one woolen mill at Bridgewater. This company paid for the year 1912 the assessments collectible through the Corporation Commission, but did not report anything and was not assessed with anything on the personal property assessment books for that year. At the November term of the circuit court, a special grand jury was impaneled to examine the books of assessment as required by section 578 of the Code of 1904. Among the persons summoned before the grand jury was the manager of the complainant company, who informed the jury that the total running capital of the company invested in its business as of July 1, 1912, was $16,703; that of this sum $14,000 was borrowed money; that the company could not tell what amount it had in its business as running capital as of February 1, 1912, but that it was not less than it was on July 1, 1912. Thereupon the grand jury directed the commissioner of the revenue for Ashby district, in which the company and its business was located, to assess the company for taxation with $16,703, the amount it had in its business as running capital during the year 1912. The aggregate tax imposed upon this assessment was $229.64, being $58.45 for state purposes, $66.81 for county purposes, and $104.38 for district purposes.

The complainants make several technical objections to the time and method of this assessment, insisting that it was not made according to law. These objections are without merit. The underlying principle in such cases is that a person whose property is liable to assessment for taxes shall not be permitted to evade payment of his just proportion of the public burden by any errors, omissions or irregularities that do not prejudice his rights. Stevenson v. Henkle, 100 Va. 591, 595, 42 S. E. 672; Yellow Poplar Co. v. Thompson, 108 Va. 612, 62 S. E. 358; Coles v. Jamerson, 112 Va. 311, 71 S. E. 618.

It is clear from the record that the objections are not well taken and that the complainant suffered no prejudice from the method of assessing the taxes it now seeks to avoid.

There is no foundation for the contention that the law does not tax the capital employed in the business of a miller or other manufacturer. That such capital is taxed clearly appears from schedule C, section 8, of the tax bill, Code, p. 2193.

Upon the merits of this controversy, the complainant contends that under subsection 3 of section 8, schedule C of the tax bill, Code, p. 2195, the capital taxed is the original capital paid in by the shareholders on the purchase of their stock, less the amount invested in real estate and the money borrowed by the company to be used in conducting its business. This position cannot be sustained. The nominal capitalization of the company which is divided into shares and sold or distributed to shareholders does not necessarily bear any relation or proportion to the actual amount of capital used in the business. A corporation may and often is doing an enormous business with a vast capital employed, although its stockholders have paid in little or nothing. The capital stock of a company must be clearly distinguished from the amount of capital invested in its business, or the amount of property possessed by it. 1 Cook on Corporations, § 8.

The third and fourth subsections of section 8, schedule C, of the tax bill are as follows:

"Third. Capital of incorporated joint-stock companies not otherwise taxed; and when all of such capital is taxed by the state of Virginia, the shares of the stock in the hands of individual shareholders shall not be further taxed for state purposes; but real estate belonging to such companies shall not be heldto be capital, but shall be listed and taxed as property, and not as capital.

"Fourth. Capital of individuals invested, used or employed in any trade or business not otherwise taxed. Moneys and credits actively used and employed in carrying on the trade or business; materials, goods, wares and merchandise on hand, and all solvent bonds, demands, or claims, made or contracted in the course of business...