Main St. Bank Inc v. Richmond
| Decision Date | 21 March 1918 |
| Parties | MAIN STREET BANK, Inc. v. CITY OP RICHMOND et al. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Error to Hustings Court of Richmond.
Motion by the Main Street Bank, Incorporated, for relief against an erroneous assessment. To review an order dismissing the motion, the Bank brings error. Affirmed.
O'Flaherty, Fulton & Byrd, of Richmond, for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General and H. R. Pollard, of Richmond, for defendants in error.
The Main Street Bank, Incorporated, proceeded under sections 567 and 571 for relief against an alleged erroneous assessment of state and local taxes for the year 1914. The trial court dismissed the motion, and the bank is here complaining.
One controlling question is whether or not the bank can proceed under those sections, and to determine this it is only necessary to refer to the statutes under which the taxes were levied.
Sections 17 to 22, inclusive, of the revenue law, provide for the taxation of bank stock. Under section 17 it is expressly provided that no tax shall be assessed upon the capital of a bank, and that the bank shall annually return to the local commissioner of the revenue a report in which shall be given the names and residences of all of its stockholders, together with the number and actual value of the shares of stock held by each stockholder, for certain deductions of personal debts of individual stockholders from the value of the shares owned by such stockholders, and forthe adjustment of the credits due to each stockholder by reason of deductions so authorized. Section 18 provides that it shall be the duty of the commissioner of the revenue, when he receives such report, to assess each stockholder upon the value of the shares of stock owned by him thus ascertained, and that three assessment lists shall be made out, one of which shall be delivered to the bank, one to the auditor of public accounts, and the other retained by the commissioner; that the assessment list thus delivered to the bank shall be a notice to the bank of the tax assessed against each of its stockholders, and have the legal force and effect of a summons upon suggestion formally issued and regularly served; that the tax assessed upon each stockholder shall be the first lien upon the stock standing in his name, and upon the dividends due and to become due thereon, and have priority over any and all other liens; that the bank shall hold the dividends or other funds belonging to the stockholder, in its custody at the time of the assessment, or which shall thereafter come under its control, for the use of the commonwealth, and apply such funds to the payment of the tax thus assessed against each stockholder; and that, when thus applied, the bank shall be acquitted of all liability to the stockholder for the money thus disbursed on his account. Section 19 provides that the bank shall pay the taxes into the treasury on or before the 1st day of June of each year. Section 20 provides that, in case the bank fails to pay the tax assessed against its stockholders on or before the date named, then the auditor of public accounts shall transmit to the treasurer of the county or city in which the bank is located a copy of the assessment, and that the treasurer shall collect the taxes thereby assessed, and shall levy upon the stock of the taxpayer, or so much thereof as is necessary to pay the tax, sell the same at public auction, and give the purchaser a bill of sale therefor. Section 21 provides that the share or shares of stock so sold shall be transferred to the purchaser, in case of such sale for taxes, and that, in case the taxes are not thus collected ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City Of Richmond v. Merch.S' Nat. Bank Of Richmond
...and therefore the proceeding should have been in their name, and could not be maintained by the bank. Main St. Bank, Inc., v. City of Richmond, 122 Va. 574, 95 S. E. 386. Whatever merit there may have been in this assignment in the first instance, the error in procedure was cured by the con......
-
Richmond Trust Co v. Christian
...on behalf of the stockholder. "In view of the decisions in Union Bank v. City of Richmond, 94 Va. 316, 26 S. E. 821; Main Street Bank v. Richmond, 122 Va. 574, 95 S. E. 386; and the Merchants' National Bank Case, in 256 U. S. 635, 41 S. Ct 619, 65 L. Ed. 1131, I may seem to lay too great em......
-
Richmond Trust Co. v. Christian
...and on behalf of the stockholders. "In view of the decisions in Union Bank City of Richmond, 94 Va. 316, 26 S.E. 821; Main Street Bank Richmond, 122 Va. 574, 95 S.E. 386; and the Merchants National Bank Case, in 258 U.S. 635, 41 S.Ct. 619, 65 L.Ed. 1131, I may seem to lay too great emphasis......
-
Sussex County v. Jarratt
...the statute, there must be an assessment, and a person aggrieved by such assessment (sections 567 and 571). In Main Street Bank v. Citv of Richmond, 122 Va. 574, 95 S. E. 386, decided March 21, 1918, the court says: " 'It is unnecessary for us to consider in this case, whether or not the er......