Colchensky v. Okla. Tax Comm'n, Case Number: 28122
Citation | 1938 OK 612,86 P.2d 329,184 Okla. 207 |
Decision Date | 06 December 1938 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 28122 |
Parties | COLCHENSKY v. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION |
Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
¶0 1. TAXATION - Power of State to Tax Citizens on Incomes Derived Wholly From Activities Outside of State.
A state has constitutional power to tax its own citizens on their net incomes though derived wholly from activities carried on by them outside of the state.
2. SAME - Basis for Taxation Established by Domicile.
Domicile in itself establishes a basis for taxation.
3. STATUTES - Intent of Legislature Determined by Entire Provision.
The purpose and intent of the Legislature in passing a statute cannot be determined from an interpretation or construction of a single word found in the statute, but such word must be construed in connection with the entire act, or portion under consideration.
4. TAXATION - Revenue Statutes Given Reasonable Construction.
While no tax can be levied without express authority of law, statutes providing for taxation are to receive a reasonable construction with a view to carrying out their purpose and intent.
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Lucius Babcock, Judge.
Action by B.L. Colchensky against the Oklahoma Tax Commission to recover income tax paid under protest. Judgment sustaining demurrer to petition, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Stanley B. Catlett, Dwight Williams, Cecil C. Hamilton, and B.B. Kerr, for plaintiff in error.
C.D. Cund, A.L. Herr, and W.B. Barnes, for defendant in error.
¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Oklahoma county sustaining a demurrer to the petition of B.L. Colchensky filed against the Oklahoma Tax Commission to recover $94.56 paid in income tax under protest for the year 1935.
¶2 The plaintiff, Colchensky, has appealed.
¶3 During the year ending December 31, 1935, the plaintiff was a resident of the state of Oklahoma and received a salary in the sum of $2,400 from the Oil Field Equipment Company, of San Antonio, Tex. None of the business of the said company was conducted within the state of Oklahoma, and all of the salary earned by the plaintiff was for services performed entirely without the state of Oklahoma.
¶4 The plaintiff protested the payment of an income tax on his salary earned outside of the state, but paid same under protest and brought this action.
¶5 The only question presented to this court for review is the action of the court in sustaining the demurrer to the plaintiff's petition. The plaintiff contends that the Legislature did not intend to tax the salaries of resident individuals earned for services performed wholly without this state, and that section 6 of article 6 of chapter 66, S. L. 1935, does not authorize the collection of such a tax.
¶6 The section provides an income tax upon every person based upon his income derived from all property owned and business transacted within the state. It is further provided that a tax shall be paid upon the net income of persons which is derived from all property owned partly within and partly without the state. The section further provides:
"Every resident individual shall likewise be subject to the tax hereby levied upon the entire net income of such individual, derived from wages, salaries, commissions, professional or occupational earnings or other compensation received from personal services."
¶7 The plaintiff places much stress upon the word "likewise" as found in the quoted portion of the section. It is contended that the word "likewise," as used in the statute, can only mean that the resident individuals are not to be taxed upon their net income derived from salaries earned from personal services performed wholly without the state.
¶8 Definition of the word "likewise" submitted by the plaintiff, obtained from Webster's New International Dictionary and from Corpus Juris, are "also; in like manner; moreover; too." The plaintiff contends that the word "likewise" means "in a like manner." In plaintiff's brief he states:
¶9 We have given due consideration to this contention in an earnest endeavor to ascertain just what merit it might contain. We are unable to agree with the construction placed upon the statute by the plaintiff.
¶10 When the sections of law here considered are examined, it is very clear that the Legislature classified, for the purpose of income taxation, the tangible and intangible property. The income derived from intangible property was placed in a separate class from that derived from tangible property.
¶11 We notice the first portion of the act...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barhorst v. City of St. Louis
... ... 551, 2 N.W.2d 256, 139 A.L.R. 1056. It was stated in Colchensky v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 184 Okl. 207, 86 P.2d 329, 'That the Legislature had the right to ... ...
-
Chestnut Securities Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
... ... 276, 52 S.Ct. 556, 76 L.Ed. 1102, 87 A.L.R. 374; Colchensky v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 184 Okl. 207, 86 P.2d 329. Neither is it beyond the constitutional ... ...
-
Linear Films, Inc. v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Com'n, 81654
... ... As stated by the court in Colchensky v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 184 Okl. 207, 86 P.2d 329 (1939), in construing a statute the intention ... ...
-
Mccutchan v. Okla. Tax Comm'n
... ... We think this premise is well taken, since the rule announced in Colchensky v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 184 Okla. 207, 86 P.2d 329, is not applicable to McCutchan. But any argument based on such premise that the disallowance ... ...