City of Indianapolis v. Vajen
| Decision Date | 14 June 1887 |
| Docket Number | 12,469 |
| Citation | 12 N.E. 311,111 Ind. 240 |
| Parties | The City of Indianapolis v. Vajen |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Marion Superior Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
C. S Denny, for appellant.
J. S Duncan, C. W. Smith and J. R. Wilson, for appellee.
Vajen recovered a judgment against the city of Indianapolis in the court below for the amount of taxes alleged to have been erroneously assessed against and collected from him, by the city, through its officers, on account of certain shares of stock in a banking association, organized under the laws of the United States.
The facts material to be stated, as specially found by the court are, briefly, as follows: On the 1st day of April, 1880 Vajen was the owner of 336 shares of the stock of the Citizens National Bank of Indianapolis, which stock was of the face value of $ 100 per share. He was at the same time indebted to an amount largely in excess of the value of his stock. In assessing national bank stock, it was the uniform habit of the city assessor to refuse permission to the plaintiff, and all other owners of national bank stock, to deduct the amount of their indebtedness from the value of their shares. Substantially, the only credits due the plaintiff at that time from which his indebtedness could have been deducted were his bank stock. The cashier of the bank made out duplicate statements, showing the number of shares comprising the capital stock of the bank and the residence of each stockholder, and the number of shares owned by each, according to the provisions of section 64, vol. 1, R. S. 1876, 89 (section 6345, R. S. 1881). After the duplicate statements had been delivered, as provided by law, the assessor proceeded to assess the shares against the several owners thereof, assessing against the plaintiff on account of the shares owned by him the sum $ 21,935.67. This amount was duly extended on the tax duplicate, and a tax amounting to $ 186.45 levied and extended against the latter on his stock for the year 1880. When the plaintiff made up his assessment list for that year he gave notice of his indebtedness, and demanded of the assessor the right to deduct from the value of his bank stock the amount of bona fide debts owing by him. This the assessor refused to allow, on the ground, as he claimed, that such deductions were not authorized by law. The plaintiff thereupon made return of his personal property upon the ordinary blank, without any statement thereon of his stock or indebtedness. At the proper time the tax duplicate, with the tax thereon extended, was delivered to the city treasurer for collection. Vajen at first refused to pay the tax against his bank stock. Subsequently, on the 28th day of September, 1881, after the treasurer had made demand, the plaintiff paid the tax, protesting that, for the reasons above mentioned, the taxes against his bank stock were illegally and erroneously assessed.
Similar proceedings, substantially, were had with reference to the assessment of 1881, the amount assessed for that year being $ 273.37. The taxes for 1881 were paid after the duplicate was delivered to the city treasurer, before any demand by the officer, the plaintiff demanding from the treasurer a deduction on account of his indebtedness, which demand was refused. In each case proper demand was made from the city by petition praying for the refunding of the taxes.
Upon the foregoing facts the court stated as its conclusions of law, that the payments were voluntarily made, but that, under the ruling in City of Indianapolis v. McAvoy, 86 Ind. 587, the plaintiff below was, nevertheless, entitled to recover from the city the several amounts thus paid.
The plaintiff below excepted to the first conclusion of law stated by the court, and the city excepted to the second.
Error and cross error are assigned by the parties respectively. There is no controversy but that, under the ruling in Wasson v. First Nat'l Bank, etc., 107 Ind. 206, 8 N.E. 97, the plaintiff was entitled to deduct his bona fide indebtedness from the value of his bank stock, if proper steps to that end had been taken before payment of the tax.
The questions discussed are, were the payments to the city treasurer, under the circumstances as disclosed, voluntary? and was the plaintiff entitled to recover the amounts paid, in any event, as the facts appear, whether the payments were voluntary or involuntary?
On behalf of the city, it is contended that the plaintiff had the right, and that it was his duty, to make out and return to the assessor under oath a list of his personal property, exhibiting on such list the amount of his credits, and showing the amount of his indebtedness, which he claimed the right to deduct. Having failed so to make and return his list, the argument is, that the demand made upon the assessor and treasurer to be allowed to make the deduction goes for nothing. This argument is predicated upon sections 6330 to 6334, R. S. 1881, inclusive. These sections provide for the listing and return of personal property by the owner for purposes of taxation. Provision is made for a statement by the lister of the credits due and owing him, and also that he shall be entitled to deduct from the gross amount of his credits the amount of all bona fide debts owing by him. The latter section provides that the assessor shall require that all deductions claimed shall be verified by the oath of the person claiming the deduction, and that the oath shall form part of the statement of the person listed. Whatever force there might be in the position contended for, under other circumstances, it is entitled to no consideration as applied to the facts in the case before us. The manner of listing and assessing bank and other corporate stocks is peculiar, as compared with the listing of other personal property. In respect to shares in a banking corporation, section 6345, R. S. 1881, makes it the duty of the president, cashier, or other accounting officer of each bank located within this State to make duplicate statements, under oath, showing the number of shares comprising the capital stock of the bank, and the name and residence of each stockholder, with the number of shares owned by each, and what he deems the fair cash value of each share, and the fair cash value of the entire capital stock of the bank. One of these statements is to be delivered to the township assessor, and the other to the county auditor. It is then made the duty of the assessor to list, assess and return the capital stock, in all respects the same as similar property belonging to other corporations and individuals. An examination of the list or schedule which the assessor is required to furnish each owner of personal property, as well as a consideration of the several statutes, will make it apparent that it was not contemplated that owners of bank shares, or, indeed, shares in any domestic corporation doing business within this State, should list their shares of stock with their other personal property. It would seem, therefore, that the statement of credits and the deduction of indebtedness for which specific provision is made, and which is required to be verified by the oath of each owner of personal property, and returned with his assessment, is not applicable to bank shares and such deductions therefrom as the owner may be entitled to make.
The right of owners of national bank stock to deduct from its value the amount of their bona fide indebtedness results rather from the construction which the Supreme Court of the United States has given the law under which national banking associations are organized, and the revenue laws of the States as applied to such associations, than from any specific provision to that effect in the revenue law of this State. While we may assume that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial