Fort Smith Lumber Company v. State of Arkansas ex rel. Attorney General
Decision Date | 05 May 1919 |
Docket Number | 206 |
Citation | 211 S.W. 662,138 Ark. 581 |
Parties | FORT SMITH LUMBER COMPANY v. STATE OF ARKANSAS EX REL. ATTORNEY GENERAL |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sebastian Chancery Court, Fort Smith District; J. V Bourland, Chancellor; affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
Hill Brizzolara & Fitzhugh, for appellant.
1. Under the decision in 128 Ark. 505 we are entitled to a decree for defendant. There is nothing in the former decision of this case that is conclusive of this case. 131 Ark. 40. The decree is in violation of article 16, section 5 Constitution of Arkansas. 73 Ark. 515; 97 Id. 254; 128 Id. 505; 131 Id. 40.
2. Taxation of the capital stock and property of a corporation and of its shares of stock is double taxation and not allowable. 97 Ark. 254; 128 Id. 505-513. The words "capital stock" mean the aggregate value of the shares of stock in the hands of shareholders, and is the basis for taxation purposes after deducting the value of the tangible property which is assessed specifically and separately. 73 Ark. 515; 78 Id. 187; 126 Id. 611; 160 P. 971; 128 Ark. 505; 131 Ark. 40.
3. The agreed statement of facts recites that the lumber company each year made out the return required by section 6036, Kirby Digest. This report gave the market value of the corporate stock or in lieu thereof the true value of all the corporate stock and all the tangible property of the corporation and disclosed all stock owned in the railway company and investment company. This was all assessed at 50 per cent. of its true market value, and each assessment was also 50 per cent. of the value of the stock of the lumber company and investment company. 87 Ark. 484. No person is required to list for taxation any stock in a corporation where the corporation is required to list or return its capital and property. Kirby's Digest, §§ 6872-6902; 87 Ark 484; 97 Id. 262; 244 U.S. 499. Here there was double taxation. 240 U.S. 522; 198 Id. 341; 188 Id. 385-730; 232 U.S. 1; 240 Id. 532. See also 198 U.S. 341.
John D. Arbuckle, Attorney General, Robert C. Knox, Assistant; George Vaughan, Frank Pace and T. M. Seawell, for appellee.
1. On the question of ultra vires, one corporation has no power to purchase and hold stock in another unless the power is clearly granted by its charter. 7 R. C. L. 547-553; 81 Ind. 500; 6 N.W. 675; 30 Am. Rep. 270; 53 N.W. 1150; 18 L. R. A. 778. The charter consists of its articles of association and the general law under which it is organized. 87 Ark. 587-591; 113 S.W. 796; 67 N.E. 207-210; 31 Ind.App. 34; 136 Ill.App. 606; 124 Ia. 107; 99 N.W. 290. There is no authority in Arkansas for one corporation to purchase and hold stock in another.
2. Holding companies have no legal status in Arkansas. 71 Ark. 379; 74 S.W. 518.
3. The general rule is that one corporation has no power to acquire and hold stock in another, unless the power is expressly granted by law or necessarily implied. 71 Ark. 379; 175 U.S. 40; Morawitz on Corp., §§ 431-2; 1 Cook on Corp., §§ 315-16-17; 7 A. & Eng. Law (2 ed.) 810-13; 96 Ark. 1; 130 S.W. 585; 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 694; Ann. Cases 1912 B. 488.
4. Defendant's funds were invested in excess of its chartered powers, and the employment of any of the funds of the lumber company in stock of the railway company was ultra vires, and a fortiori was the acquisition of all the stock of the railroad. Kirby's Dig., 6936, 6547; 128 Ark. 505; 50 N.J.Eq. 656.
5. Defendant is a manufacturing corporation and falls within the general class required to list all its property for taxation. Kirby's Dig., § 6936, as amended by Act March 11, 1915, Acts 1915, p. 615; 128 Ark. 505. The assessment of all its shares collectively is requested by law. State v. Bodcaw Lbr. Co., ms. op. No deduction is allowed. 73 Ark. 515. For the rule in other States, see 204 Pa. 36; 53 A. 517; 60 W.Va. 357; 55 S.E. 398; 155 N.C. 53; 70 S.E. 1079; L. R. A. 1915 C.380-385; 99 Ala. 1; 42 Am. St. Rep. 17; 97 Ark. 254-259, 260; 87 Ark. 484.
5. All property is subject to taxation; there is no exemption by law. The court erred in sustaining the demurrer.
OPINION
Upon the remand of the cause of State ex rel. Attorney General v. Fort Smith Lumber Company, 131 Ark. 40, 198 S.W. 702, the parties prepared the following agreed statement of facts upon which the cause was submitted:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Jackson
...129 Ark. 43, 195 S.W. 392, 1 A.L.R. 1259; Danaher v. Southwestern Tel. & Tel. Co., 137 Ark. 324, 209 S.W. 74; Ft. Smith Lbr. Co. v. State of Arkansas, 138 Ark. 581, 211 S.W. 662; Stuart v. Barron, 148 Ark. 380, 230 S.W. 569; Mo. Pac. Rd. Co. v. Walnut Ridge-Alicia Road Imp. Dist., 160 Ark. ......
-
White River Lumber Co. v. State
...had escaped adequate assessment for previous years. A second opinion was rendered in the same case, which is found reported in 138 Ark. 581, 211 S. W. 662. From this last opinion, which was adverse to the corporation, an appeal was prosecuted to the Supreme Court of the United States, and t......
-
White River Lumber Co. v. State
...had escaped adequate assessment for previous years. A second opinion was rendered in the same case, which is found reported in 138 Ark. 581, 211 S.W. 662. From this last opinion, which was adverse to the an appeal was prosecuted to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the opinion of ......
-
Gates v. Bank of Commerce & Trust Co.
... ... 502 GATES v. BANK OF COMMERCE & TRUST COMPANY No. 61Supreme Court of ArkansasJune 29, 1931 ... County, Arkansas, against appellant under the provisions of ... State of Tennessee, and the Bank of Commerce & Trust ... Hal ... L. Norwood, Attorney General, Walter L. Pope, ... Assistant, David A ... property in this State. Harris Lumber Co. v ... Grandstaff, 78 Ark. 187, 95 S.W. 772; ... Co., 97 ... Ark. 254, 133 S.W. 1113; Fort Smith Lumber Co. v ... State, 138 Ark. 581, 211 ... of a nonresident decedent owner is State ex rel ... Attorney General v. First National Bank of ... ...