Moines Nat Bank v. Bennett Central State Bank v. Same 19 20, 1931

• Decision Date: 14 December 1931
• Docket Number: 16,IOWA-DES,Nos. 15,s. 15
• Citation: 76 L.Ed. 265,284 U.S. 239,52 S.Ct. 133
• Parties: MOINES NAT. BANK v. BENNETT et al. CENTRAL STATE BANK v. SAME. Argued Oct. 19-20, 1931
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

284 U.S. 239

52 S.Ct. 133

76 L.Ed. 265

IOWA-DES MOINES NAT. BANK

v BENNETT et al.

CENTRAL STATE BANK

v. SAME.

Nos. 15, 16.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Oct. 19-20, 1931.

December 14, 1931

Messrs. John G. Gamble and A. B. Howland, both of Des Moines, Iowa, for petitioners.

Messrs. Charles Hutchinson, Eskil C. Carlson, Maxwell A. 'O'Brien, and George A. Wilson, all of Des Moines, Iowa, for respondent.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases are here on certiorari (283 U. S. 813, 51 S. Ct. 353, 75 L. Ed. 1430) to the Supreme Court of Iowa. They were argued together and involve, in the main, the same questions. The petitioner in No. 15 is the Iowa-Des Moines National Bank. The petitioner in No. 16 is the Central State Bank, an Iowa corporation. In each case it is charged that, for the years 1919, 1920, 1921, and 1922, the taxing officers of Polk county exacted from petitioner taxes on shares of its stock at rates higher than were exacted of competing moneyed capital; and that in 1923 petitioner paid the taxes with interest and penalties under protest, after threat of seizure of its property. In each case it is alleged that this unequal taxation contravened both the state law and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In No. 15 it is also charged that section 5219 of the Revised Statutes of the United States was violated. In each case the petitioner seeks by an action of mandamus to compel the appropriate county officers to refund the part of the taxes alleged to have been illegally exacted, and the interest and penalties. The county officers denied the discrimination charged and also set up many special defenses.

The trial court, after hearings which occupied more than sixteen weeks, denied relief in each case without making findings of fact or rendering an opinion. Its judgments were affirmed in the highest court of the state by a divided bench. 232 N. W. 445. The case is before us on an extensive record; but we have no occasion to examine the controverted issues of fact and of state law. The Supreme Court found, or assumed, that the systematic discrimination charged was in fact made; that the shares of the favored domestic corporations constituted a relatively material part of other moneyed capital employed in substantial competition with the business of the banks; and that the unequal exaction complained of violated the laws of Iowa. We have to consider only the legal effect under the federal law of this wrongful administration of the state law. There is no challenge of the validity of any state statute.

The taxes exacted from the petitioners were laid under Iowa Code, § 1322-1a, Supplement 1913. That section imposes upon 'state, savings and national bank stock and loan and trust company stock and moneyed capital,' an ad valorem tax based upon 20 per cent. of the actual value thereof, computed at the same rate at which tangible property is taxed under the consolidated levy for local, county, and state purposes. Compare First National Bank v. Anderson, 269 U. S. 341, 343, 46 S. Ct. 135, 70 L. Ed. 295. For the years in question, this levy ranged from 137.8 mills to 164 mills-the equivalent of 27.5 mills to 32.8 mills on the actual value. By the terms of section 1322-1a, taxes on the same basis should also have been laid upon shares of competing domestic corporations and upon other moneyed capital coming similarly into competition with both the national and the state banks. But the taxes laid upon shares of such competing domestic corporations were, in fact, at the rate of only 5 mills on the actual value. This discrimination occurred because to them was applied, not section 1322-1a, but section 1310, Supplement 1913. The latter section prescribes a tax of 5 mills on the dollar upon the full value of 'moneys, credits and corporation shares of stocks, except as otherwise provided, * * * and * * * notes, including those secured by mortgage. * * *'¹ Thus the taxes laid upon the shares of the competing domestic corporations were at a rate only one-fifth to one-seventh of that applied to the shares of the petitioners.

The wrongful discrimination so effected was not attributable to any act of the assessing body.² The shares in such competing domestic corporations had, in each year, been properly classified by the assessor in compliance with section 1322-1a; but the county auditor, in making up the tax list subsequently, changed these assessments and wrongfully extended them upon the books as 'moneys and credits' subject to the 5-mill levy. In this form the tax was certified by the auditor to the county treasurer for collection; and the treasurer exacted taxes in accordance with the auditor's certification.

The Supreme Court of Iowa, having found or assumed that there was systematic discrimination, as charged, in favor of shares in the competing domestic corporations, denied relief because it held that the auditor's acts in disregarding assessments properly made were a usurpa- tion of power and a nullity; that the county treasurer was not bound to accept the auditor's unauthorized certification; and that his exaction of the taxes in accordance therewith was, therefore, also unauthorized.³ The Court declared that, since the wrongful exaction was made without authority from the state, it did not constitute discrimination by the state; declared that, since neither the auditor nor the treasurer had power to discharge a legally assessed tax, the competing domestic corporations remain, so far as appears, liable for the balance of the assessments; and held that the petitioners had no other remedy than to await action by the taxing authori- ties to collect the taxes remaining due from their competitors or to initiate proceedings themselves to compel such collection. In other words, it held that no right of petitioners under the state law was violated, because they were not overassessed; that no right under the federal law was violated, because the lower taxation of their competitors due to usurpation by officials was not an act of the state; and that the discrimination thus effected was remediable only by correcting the wrong under the state law in favor of the competitors and not 'by extending * * * the benefits as of a similar wrong' to the petitioners. The decision rests upon a misconception of the scope and effect of the federal rights involved.

First. The Iowa-Des Moines National Bank is an instrumentality of the United States, and but for section 5219 the state would be without power to tax its shares. First National Bank v. Anderson, 269 U. S. 341, 347, 46 S. Ct. 135, 70 L. Ed. 295. That section permits a state to tax national bank shareholders if, and only so far as, the taxation is not at a rate greater 'than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of such State.' The limits of this permission were transgressed when the treasurer exacted from this petitioner taxes at rates greater than those applied in exacting payment from the competing domestic corporations. Albany County Supervisors v. Stanley, 105 U. S. 305, 26 L. Ed. 1044; Stanley v. Supervisors of Albany, 121 U. S. 535, 550, 551, 7 S. Ct. 1234, 30 L. Ed. 1000. Compare First National Bank of Hartford v. Hartford, 273 U. S. 548, 560, 47 S. Ct. 462, 71 L. Ed. 767, 59 A. L. R. 1. The discrimination was none the less action by the state although the auditor and the treasurer, in failing to give equal treatment, acted without authority and contrary to the law of the state. 'It is a question of the power of the state as a whole';⁴ and, for the purpose of determining whether the limitations imposed by section 5219 have been observed, the powers of the several state officials must be treated as if merged in a single officer. The condition imposed by the federal law was not satisfied by the enactment by the state of appropriate legislation for the taxation of other moneyed capital, and the commitment to subordinate officers of the duty of determining what constitutes such capital. The responsibility of the state for the propriety of that determination remained. Moreover, since the state now insists upon retaining the higher tax exacted from the national bank, and is sustained in so doing by its highest court, the discriminatory action cannot be said to be the act of the individual officials. Montana National Bank v. Yellowstone County, 276 U. S. 499, 504, 505, 48 S. Ct. 331, 72 L. Ed. 673.

Second. Both petitioners claim that they have been subjected to intentional, systematic discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The federal right of the Central State Bank rests wholly upon that clause. It is assumed that there was such inequality of treatment as the Constitution prohibits. Raymond v. Chicago Union Traction Co., 207 U. S. 20, 37, 28 S. Ct. 7, 52 L. Ed. 78, 12 Ann. Cas. 757; Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, 260 U. S. 441, 446, 43 S. Ct. 190, 67 L. Ed. 340, 28 A. L. R. 979; Cumberland Coal Co. v. Board of Revision, 284 U. S. 23, 52 S. Ct. 48, 76 L. Ed. 146, decided November 23, 1931. Compare Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Wakefield, 247 U. S. 350, 353, 38 S. Ct. 495, 62 L. Ed. 1154. But the Iowa court, without denying the lack of power of the state to authorize the discrimination effected, holds that such discrimination does not violate the Federal Constitution because it resulted from the act of private individuals and not of the state. The prohibition of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is true, has reference exclusively to action by the state, as distinguished from action by private individuals. Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 318, 25 L. Ed. 667; United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 639, 1 S. Ct. 601, 27 L. Ed. 290. But acts done 'by virtue of public position under a State government * * * and * * * in the name and for the State,' Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 347, 25 L. Ed. 676, are not to be treated as...