John Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company
Decision Date | 21 February 1916 |
Docket Number | No. 359,359 |
Parties | JOHN R. STANTON, Appt., v. BALTIC MINING COMPANY et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Charles A. Snow for appellant.
No appearance for appellees.
Mr. John R. Van Derlip filed a brief as amicus curioe.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 104-106 intentionally omitted] Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
As in Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co. 240 U. S. 1, 60 L. ed. ——, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, this case was commenced by the appellant as a stockholder of the Baltic Mining Company, the appellee, to enjoin the voluntary payment by the corporation and its officers of the tax assessed against it under the income tax section of the tariff act of October 3, 1913 (38 Stat. at L. 166, 181, chap. 16). As to the grounds for the equitable relief sought in this case so far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned are substantially the same as those which were relied upon in the Brushaber Case, it follows that the ruling in that case upholding the power to dispose of that controversy is controlling here, and we put that subject out of view.
Further, also, like the Brushaber Case, this is before us on a direct appeal prosecuted for the purpose of reviewing the action of the court below in dismissing on motion the bill for want of equity.
The bill averred: 'That, under and by virtue of the alleged authority contained in said income tax law, if valid and constitutional, the respondent company is taxable at the rate of 1 per cent upon its gross receipts from all sources, during the calendar year ending December 31, 1914, after deducting (1) its ordinary and necessary expenses paid within the year in the maintenance and operation of its business and properties, and (2) all losses actually sustained within the year, and not compensated by insurance or otherwise, including depreciation arising from depletion of its ore deposits to the limited extent of 5 per cent of the 'gross value at the mine of the output' during said year.' It was further alleged that the company would, if not restrained, make a return for taxation conformably to the statute, and would pay the tax upon the basis stated without protest, and that to do so would result in depriving the complainant as a stockholder of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, as the tax which it was proposed to pay without protest was void for repugnancy to that Constitution. The bill contained many averments on the following subjects, which may be divided into two generic classes: (A) Those concerning the operation of the law in question upon individuals generally and upon other than mining corporations, and the discrimination against mining corporations which arose in favor of such other corporations and individuals by the legislation, as well as discrimination which the provisions of the act operated against mining corporations because of the separate and more unfavorable burden cast upon them by the statute than was placed upon other corporations and individuals,—averments all of which were obviously made to support the subsequent charges which the bill contained as to the repugnancy of the law imposing the tax to the equal protection, due process, and uniformity clauses of the Constitution. And (B) those dealing with the practical results on the company of the operation of the tax in question, evidently alleged for the purpose of sustaining the charge which the bill made that the tax levied was not what was deemed to be the peculiar direct tax which the 16th Amendment exceptionally authorized to be levied without apportionment, and of the resulting repugnancy of the tax to the Constitution as a direct tax on property because of its ownership, levied without conforming to the regulation of apportionment generally required by the Constitution as to such taxation.
We need not more particularly state the averments as to the various contentions in class (a), as their character will necessarily be made manifest by the statement of the legal propositions based on them which we shall hereafter have occasion to make. As to the averments concerning class (B), it suffices to say that it resulted from copious allegations in the bill as to the value of the ore body contained in the mine which the company worked, and the total output for the year of the product of the mine after deducting the expenses as previously stated; that the 5 per cent deduction permitted by the statute was inadequate to allow for the depletion of the ore body, and therefore the law to a large extent taxed not the mere profit arising from the operation of the mine, but taxed as income the yearly product which represented to a large extent the yearly depletion or exhaustion of the ore body from which, during the year, ore was taken. Indeed, the following alleged facts concerning the relation which the annual production bore to the exhaustion or diminution of the property in the ore bed must be taken as true for the purpose of reviewing the judgment sustaining the motion to dimiss the bill.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bromley v. Caughn
...136, 58 L. Ed. 285; Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U. S. 179, 183, 38 S. Ct. 467, 62 L. Ed. 1054; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U. S. 103, 114, 36 S. Ct. 278, 60 L. Ed. 546. It is a tax laid only upon the exercise of a single one of those powers incident to ownership, the power to ......
-
Eisner v. Macomber
...Co., 240 U. S. 1, 17-19, 36 Sup. Ct. 236, 60 L. Ed. 493, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713, L. R. A. 1917D, 414; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U. S. 103, 112 et seq., 36 Sup. Ct. 278, 60 L. Ed. 546; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165, 172, 173, 38 Sup. Ct. 432, 62 L. Ed. A proper regard for its genes......
-
Sunray Oil Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...1277; Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corporation, 303 U. S. 376, 381, 58 S.Ct. 623, 82 L.Ed. 907. 12 See Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 114, 36 S.Ct. 278, 60 L. Ed. 546; Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U.S. 103, 107, 53 S.Ct. 74, 77 L.Ed. 199; Douglas v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue......
-
Penn Mut. Indem. Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.’ In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, the Supreme Court again made it clear that (pp. 112-113) ‘the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply ......
-
Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service, the meaning of "income," and sky-is-falling tax commentary.
...never been overruled, 'every aspect of its reasoning has been eroded,'" Murphy II, 493 F.3d at 183 (citing Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-13 (1916)), but the panel cited post-Stanton cases in a way that made it impossible to accept Pollock's complete demise. (480) Murphy II......
-
BINDING CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY: REVERSE POLLOCK AND END FATAL APPORTIONMENT.
...to poorest state was 5-to-l in 1930 before defense spending and New Deal spending in the South). (81.) Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 113 (82.) Nicol v. Ames, 173 U.S. 509, 519 (1899) (holding that a tax on the use rather than the mere ownership of property was an "excise"). (8......