Hans Rees Sons v. State of North Carolina Maxwell

Decision Date13 April 1931
Docket NumberNo. 334,334
Citation283 U.S. 123,51 S.Ct. 385,75 L.Ed. 879
PartiesHANS REES' SONS, Inc., v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ex rel. MAXWELL, Commissioner of Revenue
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

[Syllabus from pages 123-124 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Louis H. Porter and F. Carroll Taylor, both of New York City, for appellant.

Mr. Dennis G. Brummitt, of Raleigh, N. C., for appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellant, Hans Rees' Sons, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of New York, began this action by an application to the commissioner of revenue of the state of North Carolina for the readjustment of the income tax assessed against the appellant by that state. The assessment was for the years 1923, 1924, 1925, and 1926, in accordance with the applicable state laws,1 and the controversy related to the proper allocation of income to the state of North Carolina. The commissioner of revenue made his findings of fact and conclusions of law, the appellant's exceptions were overruled, and the prayer for revision of the taxes was disallowed. Appeal, waiving a jury, was taken to the superior court of Buncombe county, N. C. On the trial in that court, evidence was introduced by the appellant with respect to the course of business and the amount and sources of income for the years in question. The appellant admitted that '(a) in assessing the tax the Commissioner of Revenue followed the statutory method; * * * (b) that the valuation of the real estate and tangible property of the taxpayer 'both within and without the State' is correct; (c) that the total net income used as a basis for the calculation of the tax is correct; (d) that the allocation of the net income for purposes of taxation was in full accord with the statute.' The contention of the appellant was that the income tax statute as applied to the appellant, upon the facts disclosed, was arbitrary and unreasonable, and was repugnant to the commerce clause and to section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. The superior court struck out the testimony offered by the appellant, as being immaterial, and held that the statute, as applied did not violate constitutional rights. The judgment dismissing the action was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State 199 N. C. 42, 153 S. E. 850, 853. The case comes here on appeal.

As to the portions of the taxes for the years in question, which had been paid by the appellant voluntarily and as to which recovery was denied upon that ground, no question is raised here.

The Supreme Court of the state sustained the ruling of the trial court in striking out the evidence offered by the appellant, but held that, if the evidence were deemed to be competent, it would not change the result. The case may therefore be viewed as though the evidence had been received and held to have no bearing on the validity of the statute. Fairmont Creamery Company v. Minnesota, 274 U. S. 1, 5, 47 S. Ct. 506, 71 L. Ed. 893, 52 A. L. R. 163. The evidence was thus summarized by the state court:

'This evidence tended to show that the petitioner (the appellant here) was incorporated in the state of New York in 1901 and is engaged in the business of tanning, manufacturing, and selling belting and other heavy leathers. Many years prior to 1923 it located a manufacturing plant at Asheville, N. C., and, after this plant was in full operation, dismantled and abandoned all plants which it had heretofore operated in different states of the Union. The business is conducted upon both wholesale and retail plans. The wholesale part of the business consists in selling certain portions of the hide to shoe manufacturers and others in carload lots. The retail part of the business consists in cutting the hide into innumerable pieces, finishing it in various ways nd man ners, and selling it in less than carload lots. In order to facilitate sales a warehouse is maintained in New York from which shipments are made of stock on hand to various customers. The tannery at Asheville is used as the manufacturing plant and a supply house, and, when the quantity or quality of merchandise required by a customer is not on hand in the New York warehouse, a requisition is sent to the plant at Asheville to ship to the New York werehouse or direct to the customer. The sales office is located in New York, and the salesmen report to that office. Sales are made throughout this country and in Canada and Continental Europe. Some sales are also made in North Carolina. Certain finishing work is done in New York. The evidence further tended to show that 'between forty and fifty per cent. of the output of the plant in Asheville is shipped from the Asheville tannery to New York. The other sixty per cent. is shipped direct on orders from New York. * * * Shipment is made direct from Asheville to the customer.'

'The petitioner also offered evidence to the effect that the income from the business was derived from three sources, to wit: (1) buying profit; (2) manufacturing profit; (3) selling profit. It contends that buying profit resulted from unusual skill and efficiency in taking advantage of fluctuations of the hide market; that manufacturing profit was based upon the difference between the cost of tanning done by contract and the actual cost thereof when done by the petitioner at its own plant in Asheville, and that selling profit resulted from the method of cutting the leather into small parts so as to meet the needs of a given customer.

'Without burdening this opinion with detailed compilations set out in the record, the evidence offered by the petitioner tends to show that, for the years 1923, 1924, 1925, and 1926, the average income having its source in the manufacturing and tanning operations within the state of North Carolina was 17 per cent.'

According to the assessments in question, as revised by the commissioner of revenue and sustained, there was allocated to the state of North Carolina, pursuant to the prescribed statutory method, for the year 1923, 83k per cent. of the appellant's income; for 1924, 85k per cent; for 1925, 66k per cent; and for 1926, 85k per cent.

The applicable statutory provisions, as set forth by the state court, are as follows:

'Every corporation organized under the laws of this State shall pay annually an income tax, equivalent to four per cent. of the entire net income as herein defined, received by such corporation during the income year; and every foreign corporation doing business in this State shall pay annually an income tax equivalent to four per cent. of a proportion of its entire income to be determined according to the following rules:

'(a) In case of a company other than companies mentioned in the next succeeding section, deriving profits principally from the ownership, sale or rental of real estate or from the manufacture, purchase, sale of, trading in, or use of tangible property, such proportion of its entire net income as the fair cash value of its real estate and tangible personal property in this State on the date of the close of the fiscal year of such company in the income year is to the fair cash value of its entire real estate and tangible personal property then owned by it, with no deductions on account of encumbrances thereon.

'(b) In case of a corporation deriving profits principally from the holding or sale of intangible property, such proportion as its gross receipts in this State for the year ended on the date of the close of its fiscal year next preceding is to its gross receipts for such year within and without the State.

'(c) The words 'tangible personal property' shall be taken to mean corporeal personal property, such as ma- chinery, tools, implements, goods, wares and merchandise and shall not be taken to mean money deposits in bank, shares of stock, bonds, ote s, credits or evidence of an interest in property and evidences of debt.'

Relying upon the decisions of this court with respect to statutes of a similar sort enacted by other states, the Supreme Court of the state held that the statute of North Carolina was not invalid upon its face. Underwood Typewriter Company v. Chamberlain, 254 U. S. 113, 120, 121, 41 S. Ct. 45, 65 L. Ed. 165; Bass, Ratcliff & Gretton, Limited, v. State Tax Commission, 266 U. S. 271, 280-283, 45 S. Ct. 82, 69 L. Ed. 282; National Leather Company v. Massachusetts, 277 U. S. 413, 423, 48 S. Ct. 534, 536, 72 L. Ed. 935. In Underwood Typewriter Company v. Chamberlain, supra, a statute of Connecticut imposed upon foreign corporations doing business partly within and partly without the state, an annual tax of 2 per cent. upon the net income earned during the preceding year on business carried on within the state, ascertained by taking such proportion of the whole net income on which the corporation was required to pay a tax to the United States as the value of its real and tangible personal property within the state bore to the value of all its real and tangible personal property....

To continue reading

Request your trial
255 cases
  • State Tax Commission v. John H. Breck, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • July 3, 1957
    ...by the commission is so unreasonable, as applied to it, as to come within the principle of Hans Rees' Sons, Inc. v. North Carolina, 283 U.S. 123, 134, 51 S.Ct. 385, 389, 75 L.Ed. 879, which held that in a particular instance North Carolina had applied a formula method, 'which, albeit fair o......
  • Container Corporation of America v. Franchise Tax Board
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1983
    ...business/formula apportionment method, although subject to certain constraints. See, e.g., Hans Rees' Sons, Inc. v. North Carolina ex rel. Maxwell, 283 U.S. 123, 51 S.Ct. 385, 75 L.Ed. 879 (1931); Bass, Ratcliff & Gretton, Ltd. v. State Tax Comm'n, 266 U.S. 271, 45 S.Ct. 82, 69 L.Ed. 282 (1......
  • Spector Motor Service v. Connor v. 29 8212 30, 1950
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 26, 1951
    ...273, 84 L.Ed. 304; Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 303 U.S. 77, 58 S.Ct. 436, 82 L.Ed. 673; Hans Rees' Sons v. North Carolina, 283 U.S. 123, 51 S.Ct. 385, 75 L.Ed. 879; Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Chamberlain, 254 U.S. 113, 41 S.Ct. 45, 65 L.Ed. 165. ...
  • Spector Motor Service v. Walsh
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 18, 1944
    ...165; Bass, Ratcliff & Gretton, Ltd. v. State Tax Commission, 266 U.S. 271, 45 S.Ct. 82, 69 L. Ed. 282; cf. Hans Rees' Sons v. North Carolina, 283 U.S. 123, 51 S.Ct. 385, 75 L.Ed. 879; Butler Bros. v. McColgan, 315 U.S. 501, 62 S.Ct. 701, 86 L.Ed. 991. Even a tax measured by gross receipts f......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • State And Local Tax Insights: Spring 2013
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • May 15, 2013
    ...13 Id. 14 Id. at 169. 15 Id. 16 Id. at 169-70. 17 Id. at 170-71. 18 Id. at 170 (quoting Hans Rees' Sons, Inc. v. N.C.ex rel Maxwell, 283 U.S. 123, 135 (1931); Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 390 U.S. 317, 326 (1968); and Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Bair, 437 U.S. 267, 274 (1978)). 19 M......
  • Mofo New York Tax Insights - Fall 2013
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 4, 2013
    ...facts and circumstances, fairly can be measured by looking exclusively at sales activity? See Hans Rees' Son, Inc. v. North Carolina, 283 U.S. 123 (1931). On the other hand, a single sales factor has passed Constitutional muster on at least one prior occasion. See Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Bair, ......
  • Alaska Supreme Court Holds Petroleum Company’s Business Was Unitary, Alternative Apportionment Formula Was Reasonable
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 6, 2013
    ...and a uniform retirement plan. 16 ALASKA STAT. § 43.19.010, art. IV, § 18. 17 The taxpayer cited Hans Rees' Sons, Inc. v. North Carolina, 283 U.S. 123 (1931) for the proposition that a state's apportionment should be struck down if there is a large disparity between the income taxed under s......
5 books & journal articles
  • The states' Multiple Taxation of Personal Income.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 71 No. 1, September 2020
    • September 22, 2020
    ...connected with the taxing State"). (63.) Moorman, 437 U.S. at 274 (citations omitted) (quoting Hans Rees' Sons, Inc. v. North Carolina, 283 U.S. 123, 135 (1931) and Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 390 U.S. at 330 (Black, J., (64.) See STATE TAXATION, supra note 7, [paragraph] 20.05(4] [e] (discus......
  • DUPLICATIVE TAXATION AMONG THE STATES: A PROBLEM NOT WORTH SOLVING?
    • United States
    • Florida Tax Review Vol. 25 No. 2, March 2022
    • March 22, 2022
    ...Although the Commonwealth Edison case did not expressly overrule an earlier case, Hans Rees' Sons, Inc. v. North Carolina ex rel Maxwell, 283 U. S. 123 (1931), in which the Court struck down the state's use of a one-factor apportionment formula relying solely on the taxpayer's ownership of ......
  • Alternative apportionment: tough for the taxpayer, (too) easy for the states.
    • United States
    • The Tax Adviser Vol. 43 No. 10, October 2012
    • October 1, 2012
    ...to disturb the statutory apportionment formulas mandated by the states (but see Hans Rees' Sons v. North Carolina ex rel. Maxwell, 283 U.S. 123 (1931), in which a single factor formula was found to be arbitrary and unreasonable). However, many state statutes incorporate a specific provision......
  • AGGLOMERATION AND STATE PERSONAL INCOME TAXES: TIME TO APPORTION (WITH CRITICAL COMMENTARY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE'S COMPLAINT AGAINST MASSACHUSETTS).
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 48 No. 4, April 2021
    • April 1, 2021
    ...(1873). (27.) Container Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 159,170 (1983) (quoting Hans Rees' Sons v. North Carolina exrel. Maxwell, 283 U.S. 123, 135 (28.) See generally Joondeph, supra note 25. (29.) TEX. TAX CODE ANN. [section] 171.106(a) (West 2018). (30.) See id. (31.) See, e.g., New......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT