Commonwealth v. Rutherfoord
Decision Date | 15 June 1933 |
Citation | 169 S.E. 909 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH. v. RUTHERFOORD. |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court of City of Richmond.
Proceedings by Helen M. B. Rutherfoord, opposed by the Commonwealth of Virginia, for relief from certain tax assessments. To review a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant brings error.
Judgment affirmed.
Argued before CAMPBELL, C. J., and HOLT, EPES, HUDGINS, GREGORY, BROWNING, and CHINN, JJ.
W. W. Martin, of Richmond, for plaintiff in error.
John S. Barbour and G. Thomas Dunlop, both of Washington, D. C, for defendant in error.
The commonwealth of Virginia, under the appropriate statute for such proceedings, assessed Mrs. Rutherfoord on her income and intangible personal property for taxes for the years 1928, 1929, and 1930, in the sum of $18,330.63. If she were legally assessable the amount is concededly correct.
She instituted proceedings under the applicable section of the Code of Virginia praying for relief from the assessments which she alleged were without warrant of law under the statutes of Virginia and under the Constitution of the United States, and that if the attempt to subject her to the burden of the tax was within the contemplation of the statutes of Virginia, then the enforcement of their provisions would be in violation of her rights as a citizen of the state of New York and the United States, and would deprive her of her property in derogation of the Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
The court below granted the prayer of the petition and declared the assessment void and exonerated the petitioner from payment of the tax.
The commonwealth made the assessments upon the theory that Mrs. Rutherfoord was, at the time they were made, domiciled in Virginia for the purposes of taxation and for every other purpose except that of voting.
The facts appear to be clearly and succinctly stated in the "Stipulation of Facts, " appearing in the record and therefore we quote them:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gardner v. Gardner, 10900
...297; Taylor v. Taylor, 128 W.Va. 198, 36 S.E.2d 601; Sutton v. Sutton, 128 W.Va. 290, 36 S.E.2d 608; Commonwealth v. Rutherfoord, 160 Va. 524, 169 S.E. 909, 90 A.L.R. 348; Williamson v. Osenton, 232 U.S. 619, 34 S.Ct. 442, 58 L.Ed. 758; Nelson, Divorce and Annulment (2d Ed.), Vol. 2, page 6......
-
Green v. Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation
...though her relations with him are wholly amicable.' The weight of authority in tax cases supports this view. Commonwealth v. Rutherfoord, 160 Va. 524, 536, 169 S.E. 909 (1933). McKnight v. Dudley, 148 F. 204, 206 (6th Cir. 1906). McCormick v. United States, 57 Treas.Dec. 117, 120 (Customs C......
-
Younger v. Gianotti
...desire that New York should be their place of abode, their residence, their domicile, for any purpose." In Commonwealth v. Rutherfoord, 1933, 160 Va. 524, 169 S.E. 909, 90 A.L.R. 348 annotation, the opposite conclusion was reached on facts raising the same Considering that legislation of Vi......
-
Lane-Burslem v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...e. g., Morrison v. Morrison, 316 So.2d 453 (La.Ct.App. 1975); Bush v. Bush, 232 La. 747, 95 So.2d 298 (1957). Cf. Commonwealth v. Rutherfoord, 160 Va. 524, 169 S.E. 909 (1933). In that case the court allowed a wife living amicably with her husband to maintain a separate domicile, resting on......