Buckstaff Bath House Co v. Kinley, No. 201
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Writing for the Court | DOUGLAS |
Citation | 84 L.Ed. 322,60 S.Ct. 279,308 U.S. 358 |
Parties | BUCKSTAFF BATH HOUSE CO. v. McKINLEY, Commissioner of the Department of Labor of the State of Arkansas, et al |
Decision Date | 18 December 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 201 |
v.
McKINLEY, Commissioner of the Department of Labor of the State of Arkansas, et al.
Page 359
Mr. Terrell Marshall, of Little Rock, Ark., for petitioner.
Mr. W. L. Pope, of Little Rock, Ark., for respondents.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 901 of the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 620, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, levies an excise tax, equal to specified percentages of total wages paid, on 'every employer' of eight or more persons with respect to their 'employment'. By § 902 the taxpayer may credit against this tax the amount of contributions paid by him into an unemployment fund under a state law, such credit however not to exceed 90 per cent of the tax and to be allowed only for contributions made
Page 360
under the laws of states approved and certified by the Social Security Board in accordance with the standards prescribed in § 903. By § 907 the term 'employment' is defined to mean 'any service, of whatever nature, performed within the United States by an employee for his employer' except, inter alia, service performed 'in the employ of the United States Government or of an instrumentality of the United States'.
Petitioner is an Arkansas corporation, organized for profit and with its only place of business situated on the United States Government Reservation known as Hot Springs National Park. It operates a bath house, which it erected and equipped, under a long term lease from the Secretary of the Interior. By the terms of that lease the operation and use of the bath house facilities are subject to certain control by the Department of the Interior, which in the main relate to the number of bath tubs which may be used, the charges to the public, the qualifications of employees, the maintenance and care of the premises, a prohibition of employment of agents to solicit patronage, and control over an assignment or transfer of the lease or any interest therein.
Respondents are officials of the State of Arkansas charged with the duty of enforcement of the Arkansas Unemployment Compensation Law,1 an act reciprocal to, and integrated with, the Social Security Act.2 Pursuant to that act respondents sought to collect from petitioner as an employer the required contributions for the calendar year 1937. Petitioner paid into the Treasury of the United States the tax required by the Social Security Act
Page 361
for that period. But it refused to pay the state tax and sued in the state court to enjoin its collection on the grounds, inter alia, that it is an instrumentality of the United States and that certain acts of Congress and statutes of Arkansas exempt it from such taxation. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed a decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill and dismissing it, on the grounds that the Arkansas statute was applicable to petitioner and that, on construction of the acts in question, petitioner did not have the claimed immunity, 127 S.W.2d 802. We granted certiorari because that decision was asserted to be repugnant to the acts vesting exclusive jurisdiction over the Hot Springs Reservation in the United States. 308 U.S. 508, 60 S.Ct. 97, 84 L.Ed. —-.
Petitioner's contention here, as below, is based primarily on the Act of Congress of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 842, whereby the consent of the United States was given for the taxation, under the authority of the laws of the State of Arkansas applicable to the equal taxation of personal property in that State, as personal property of all structures and other property in private ownership on the Hot Springs Reservation (National Park).' 16 U.S.C.A. § 365. 3 Petitioner points
Page 362
out that the tax imposed by the Social Security Act against which appropriate credits may be made for contributions under state laws is laid, as stated by this Court in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 578, 57 S.Ct. 883, 886, 887, 81 L.Ed. 1279, 109 A.L.R. 1293, 'as a duty, an impost, or an excise upon the relation of employment'; and that as held by the Supreme Court of Arkansas the tax in question is 'not a tax on personal property; nor is it, in any sense, a property tax'. 127 S.W.2d 805. Therefore, petitioner concludes that the United States did not confer on the state of Arkansas the power to impose such a tax but retains its sovereign jurisdiction in that regard since the power of Arkansas to tax was limited to the enumerated property taxes.
We agree with the Supreme Court of Arkansas that the state had jurisdiction to impose the tax in question.
There can be no...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kerpen v. Metro. Wash. Airports Auth., 1:16cv1307 (JCC/TCB)
...fact that MWAA leases federal property does not transform it into a federal instrumentality. See Buckstaff Bath House Co. v. McKinley , 308 U.S. 358, 362, 60 S.Ct. 279, 84 L.Ed. 322 (1939) ; see also United States v. Muskegon Twp. , 355 U.S. 484, 486, 78 S.Ct. 483, 2 L.Ed.2d 436 (1958) (hol......
-
McCaw v. Fase, No. 13920.
...state taxation. Broad River Power Co. v. Query, 1933, 288 U.S. 178, 53 S.Ct. 326, 77 L.Ed. 685; Buckstaff Bathhouse Co. v. McKinley, 1939, 308 U.S. 358, 60 S.Ct. 279, 84 L.Ed. 322. And the character of radio communication does not prohibit a tax upon the state business any more than the int......
-
Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Hines
...force from a statement in the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in the recent case of Buckstaff Bath House Company v. McKinley, 60 S.Ct. 279, 282, 84 L.Ed. ——, handed down December 18, 1939, that "The exclusion of federal instrumentalities from the scope of the Federal Act, and hen......
-
Gernatt v. Huiet, No. 13844.
...Carmichael v. Southern Coal, etc., Co., 301 U.S. 495, 57 S.Ct. 868, 81 L.Ed. 1245, 109 A.L.R. 1327; Buckstaff Bath House Co. v. McKinley, 308 U.S. 358, 60 S.Ct. 279, 84 L.Ed. 322; Beeland Wholesale Co. v. Kaufman, 234 Ala. 249, 174 So. 516; McKinley v. R. L. Payne & Son Lumber Co., 200 Ark.......
-
Kerpen v. Metro. Wash. Airports Auth., 1:16cv1307 (JCC/TCB)
...fact that MWAA leases federal property does not transform it into a federal instrumentality. See Buckstaff Bath House Co. v. McKinley , 308 U.S. 358, 362, 60 S.Ct. 279, 84 L.Ed. 322 (1939) ; see also United States v. Muskegon Twp. , 355 U.S. 484, 486, 78 S.Ct. 483, 2 L.Ed.2d 436 (1958) (hol......
-
McCaw v. Fase, No. 13920.
...state taxation. Broad River Power Co. v. Query, 1933, 288 U.S. 178, 53 S.Ct. 326, 77 L.Ed. 685; Buckstaff Bathhouse Co. v. McKinley, 1939, 308 U.S. 358, 60 S.Ct. 279, 84 L.Ed. 322. And the character of radio communication does not prohibit a tax upon the state business any more than the int......
-
Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Hines
...force from a statement in the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in the recent case of Buckstaff Bath House Company v. McKinley, 60 S.Ct. 279, 282, 84 L.Ed. ——, handed down December 18, 1939, that "The exclusion of federal instrumentalities from the scope of the Federal Act, and hen......
-
Gernatt v. Huiet, No. 13844.
...Carmichael v. Southern Coal, etc., Co., 301 U.S. 495, 57 S.Ct. 868, 81 L.Ed. 1245, 109 A.L.R. 1327; Buckstaff Bath House Co. v. McKinley, 308 U.S. 358, 60 S.Ct. 279, 84 L.Ed. 322; Beeland Wholesale Co. v. Kaufman, 234 Ala. 249, 174 So. 516; McKinley v. R. L. Payne & Son Lumber Co., 200 Ark.......