Commonwealth v. United Gas Improvement Co.
| Decision Date | 11 July 1894 |
| Docket Number | 27 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. United Gas Improvement Co., Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued May 28, 1894
Appeal, No. 27, May T., 1893, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Dauphin Co., June T., 1892, No. 365, for plaintiff, on trial by court without jury. Reversed.
Appeal from tax settlement.
The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Errors assigned were, inter alia, entry of judgment.
The judgment is therefore reversed and judgment is now entered in favor of the defendant with costs of suit.
M. E Olmsted and C. E. Morgan, Jr., for appellant, cited: Com v. Coal Co., 156 Pa. 488; Fox's Ap., 112 Pa. 337; Fidelity Co. v. Loughlin, 139 Pa. 612; Penna. Co. for Ins. etc. v. Com., 22 W.N. 340; (s.c., 2 Mona. 694; motion for reargument, Ib. 776;) Com. v. Penna. Co., 145 Pa. 266; Bank v. Young, 25 Iowa 311; Comrs. v. Bank, 48 Md. 117; Tax Cases, 12 G. & J. 117; Gordon's Exrs. v. R.R., 5 Gill, 231.
W. U. Hensel, attorney general, James A. Stranahan, deputy attorney general, with him, for appellee, cited: Com. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 151 Pa. 265; Com. v. Air Brake Co., 151 Pa. 276.
Before STERRETT, C.J., GREEN, WILLIAMS, McCOLLUM, MITCHELL, DEAN and FELL, JJ.
The capital stock of the defendant corporation was appraised at the sum of $8,694,675, and the capital stock tax was charged with taxes upon that sum. Upon appeal to the court of common pleas of Dauphin county that court deducted from the above valuation so much of the capital stock as was invested in tangible property outside of this state, so much as was invested in patent rights, and so much as represented exclusive licenses to use certain patents which the corporation did not own. It refused to deduct so much as was invested in the shares in corporations that had been assessed, and paid, a capital stock tax. The defendant appealed to this court alleging the refusal to deduct the sum invested in said shares as error. This item now appears by an agreement which was filed in the court below to be the only subject of controversy in the case. If this item should have been deducted by the court below then the state has received all to which it is entitled. This question is fully settled by the Commonwealth v. Fall Brook Company, 156 Pa 488. It is not necessary to repeat what was there said. When a tax has been paid by a corporation upon its entire capital stock, the same stock cannot be again charged with taxes in the hands of the separate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
...which is otherwise exempt from taxation: D., L. & W. R. R. v. Penna., 198 U.S. 341; Com. v. Fall Brook Coal Co., 156 Pa. 488; Com. v. Gas Co., 162 Pa. 602; Com. v. Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co., 162 Pa. Appellant is subjected to double taxation unless full credit is given for capital stock t......
-
Dupuy v. Johns
... ... Pennsylvania bears to the total capital stock of the company: ... Commonwealth v. Standard Penna. and O.R.R. Co., 188 ... Pa. 169; Commonwealth v. Fall Brook Coal Co., 156 ... Pa. 346; Commonwealth v. Lehigh Coal & Navigation ... Co., 162 Pa. 603; Commonwealth v. United Gas ... Improvement Co., 162 Pa. 602; Commonwealth v. Fall Brook ... Coal Co., 156 Pa. 488 ... ...
-
Standard Life Insurance Co. of America v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...words from the liability to taxation in the hands of the holder by the first section of the Act of 1889. * * * In Commonwealth v. United Gas Improvement Co., 162 Pa. 602; 29 Atl. 667, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said: * * * When a tax has been paid by a corporation upon its entire cap......