Ellis v. W.A. Handley Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 751 |
| Citation | 214 Ala. 539,108 So. 343 |
| Parties | ELLIS, Treasurer, et al. v. W.A. HANDLEY MFG. CO. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Dismissed May 13, 1926
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Walter B. Jones Judge.
Action by the W.A. Handley Manufacturing Company against George W Ellis, as State Treasurer, and others, as State Tax Commissioners, to recover taxes paid under protest. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § 7326. Reversed and remanded.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and A.A. Evans, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants.
Weil Stakely & Vardaman, of Montgomery, for appellee.
This case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, and the only point made by the appellee against the assessment is that, in ascertaining the actual amount of property employed in this state, the total value of the lands, machinery and buildings should not be considered as a basis. In other words, that there is an existing mortgage indebtedness on the plant and the amount of same should be deducted from the value of the plant. The Act of 1919, § 16, p. 291, was passed pursuant to section 232 of the Constitution of 1901, dealing with foreign corporations, and which authorizes a franchise tax "based on the actual amount of capital employed in this state." These provisions were considered in the recent case of L. & N.R.R. v. State, 201 Ala. 317 78 So. 93, and, while the point here involved was not expressly decided, it was indicated that, in estimating the value of capital employed in this state, it need not be proportionate to the entire capital or capital stock, and quoting from the United States Supreme Court as to the Arkansas law, it was intimated that, while the tax was a franchise one, and not a direct or property tax, the "ascertaining of the amount is made dependent in fact on the value of its property situated within the state, the exaction therefore not being susceptible of exceeding the sum which might be leviable thereon." Now in ascertaining the sum that might be leviable on the property listed and employed in the business of this appellee, we know of no law providing for or authorizing a deduction for incumbrances. In other words, the value of the plant, regardless of the mortgage on same, should be assessed for purposes of direct taxation, and, while this is a franchise and not a direct tax, the value...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nitrate Sales Corporation v. State of Alabama
...Nitrate Sales Corp. (Ala. Sup.) 142 So. 87, 91; cf. L. & N.R.R. Co. v. State, 201 Ala. 317, 318, 78 So. 93; Ellis v. Handley Mfg. Co., 214 Ala. 539, 108 So. 343; Kansas City Ry. Co. v. Stiles, 182 Ala. 138, 62 So. 734. True indeed it is that the corporation will be relieved of the burden if......
-
Alabama Textile Products Corp. v. State
...'The thought expressed in the Pullman-Standard Car Mfg. Co. case, supra, is also found expressed in the case of Ellis v. W. A. Handley Mfg. Co., 214 Ala. 539, 108 So. 343, 344, in language as "We are, of course, aware, of the fact that in some instances 'capital' and 'capital stock' are use......
-
White v. Reynolds Metals Co.
...570. We do not see that that interpretation is necessarily a correct interpretation of § 229. The Court in Ellis v. W.A. Handley Mfg. Co., 214 Ala. 539, 540, 108 So. 343, 344 (1926), a case involving the foreign corporation franchise tax, noted: "We are, of course, aware of the fact that in......
-
South Cent. Bell Telephone Co. v. State
...Coast Line Ry. v. State, 204 Ala. 80, 85 So. 424 (1920); State v. Bradley, 207 Ala. 677, 93 So. 595 (1922); Ellis v. W.A. Handley Mfg. Co., 214 Ala. 539, 540, 108 So. 343 (1926); State v. Guaranty Sav. Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 225 Ala. 481, 483, 144 So. 104 (1932); State v. Southern Natural Gas ......