Franklin v. Carter
| Decision Date | 08 July 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 412.,412. |
| Citation | 51 F.2d 345 |
| Parties | FRANKLIN v. CARTER, State Auditor of Oklahoma. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Streeter B. Flynn, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (Geo. Otey, of Ardmore, Okl., and R. M. Rainey and Rainey, Flynn, Green & Anderson, all of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.
F. M. Dudley, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Oklahoma (J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., of Oklahoma, on the brief), for appellee.
Before COTTERAL, PHILLIPS, and McDERMOTT, Circuit Judges.
This is a suit to recover $3,405.81 paid under protest by appellant as income taxes for 1929.
The petition alleged that appellant was a resident of Oklahoma engaged in the production and sale of oil and gas in competition with corporations doing a like business in that state; that sections 9934 to 9945, inclusive, C. O. S. 1921, purport to impose a tax upon his income and to exempt the income of corporations from such tax; that such exemption is discriminatory and deprives him of due process of law and the equal protection of the laws in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States constitution. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the petition.
Section 9934, C. O. S. 1921, in part provides: "Each and every person in this state shall be liable to an annual tax upon the entire net income of such person arising or accruing from all sources during the preceding calendar year, and a like tax shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid annually upon the entire net income from all property owned and all other business, trade or profession carried on in this State by persons residing elsewhere."
Section 9938, C. O. S. 1921, in part provides: "The term `income' as used in this act shall include: * * * (d) All dividends or profits derived from stocks or from the purchase and sale of any property, or other valuables acquired within one year previous, or from any business whatsoever."
Counsel for appellant contend that the statute denies him the "equal protection of the laws" because it undertakes to impose a tax upon the incomes of individuals and to exempt therefrom corporations engaged in the same business.
The clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbidding a state to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" is a guaranty that all persons subjected to state legislation "shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions, both in privileges conferred and in liabilities imposed." Power Mfg. Co. v. Saunders, 274 U. S. 490, 493, 47 S. Ct. 678, 71 L. Ed. 1165; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U. S. 312, 333, 42 S. Ct. 124, 130, 66 L. Ed. 254, 27 A. L. R. 375; Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68, 7 S. Ct. 350, 30 L. Ed. 578. It is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. Power Mfg. Co. v. Saunders, supra; Truax v. Corrigan, supra; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369, 6 S. Ct. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220.
The principles which govern the application of the equal protection clause to the power of taxation by the states are well settled. Such power is essential to the existence of the government of a state. State Board of Tax Comm'rs of Ind. v. Jackson, 283 U. S. 527, 51 S. Ct. 540, 75 L. Ed. 1248; Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway, 281 U. S. 146, 159, 50 S. Ct. 310, 74 L. Ed. 775. Such clause does not compel a state to adopt an iron rule of equal taxation; nor require it to resort to close distinctions or to maintain a precise, scientific uniformity with reference to composition, use or value; nor prevent it from exercising a broad discretion in the classification of properties, businesses, trades, callings or occupations for the purpose of taxation. State Board of Tax Comm'rs v. Jackson, supra; Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway, supra; Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232, 237, 10 S. Ct. 533, 33 L. Ed. 892; Southwestern Oil Co. v. Texas, 217 U. S. 114, 122, 30 S. Ct. 496, 54 L. Ed. 688; Brown-Forman v. Kentucky, 217 U. S. 563, 572, 573, 30 S. Ct. 578, 54 L. Ed. 883; Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U. S. 553, 51 S. Ct. 582, 75 L. Ed. 1264.
However, there is a point beyond which a state cannot go without violating the equal protection clause. While a state may classify broadly the subjects of taxation, in doing so it must proceed upon a rational basis. It is not at liberty to resort to a classification that is palpably arbitrary. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hammett v. Kansas City
...if all in the same class are included and treated alike. Hart Refineries v. Harmon, 278 U.S. 499, 49 S.Ct. 188, 73 L.Ed. 475; Franklin v. Carter, 51 F.2d 345, certiorari 284 U.S. 664, 52 S.Ct. 40, 76 L.Ed. 562; Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Browning, 310 U.S. 362, 60 S.Ct. 968, 84 L.Ed.......
-
State Tax Commission v. Shattuck, Civil 3449
...... . . The. federal rule as to classification of property we think is. well stated in Franklin v. Carter, (C.C.A.). 51 F.2d 345, 346, as follows:. . . . "The principles which govern the application of the. equal protection ......
-
Union Elec. Co. v. Coale
...... the State in which the money from which they were paid was. earned. Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 40 S.Ct. 225. (b) As applied to foreign corporations the statute would. probably be held unconstitutional as an attempt to subject ...State Tax Commission of. Mississippi, 162 Miss. 338, 137 So. 503, 286 U.S. 276,. 52 S.Ct. 556, 76 L.Ed. 1102, 87 A. L. R. 374; Franklin v. Carter (C. C. A.), 51 F.2d 345. . . . Southeast Power & Light Co. v. McCarroll, supra, was. also an Arkansas case, and the ......
-
Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 91,007.
......September 19, 2000. William C. Doty, The Bell Law Firm, Norman Oklahoma for Petitioner. H.A. Carter, H.A. Carter Law Office, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for Respondent. 12 P.3d 454 BOUDREAU, J. ¶ 1 The issue presented is ...Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 2326, 120 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992); Franklin v. Carter, 51 F.2d 345 (10th Cir.1931). The equal protection clause prohibits a governing body from applying a law dissimilarly to people who are ......