Northern Commercial Co. v. Territory of Alaska
| Decision Date | 28 May 1923 |
| Docket Number | 3959. |
| Citation | 289 F. 786 |
| Parties | NORTHERN COMMERCIAL CO. OF ALASKA v. TERRITORY OF ALASKA. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
By the provisions of chapter 42, p. 132, Session Laws of Alaska 1921, the Legislature of the territory prescribed in section 1 a license fee of $10 for the business of fur farming, $25 for stationary fur buyers, and $150 for itinerant fur buyers and in section 3 further provided: 'In addition to the license fee above provided for the licensee shall pay to the commissioner who issued the license the following license fees on each pelt taken by a fur farmer or purchased or otherwise acquired by a fur buyer, or taken by a trapper and not sold to a licensed fur buyer. ' Then follows a designation of the various kinds of skins dealt in by such licensees, with the amount of license tax payable upon each kind. The territory brought an action against the plaintiff in error to recover the amount of the unpaid license fees so enumerated in section 3 as for pelts purchased and subject to the license tax imposed by the statute. The plaintiff in error had already paid the general license fee for engaging in the business of stationary fur buyers. A demurrer was interposed to the complaint on the ground that the legislation was in violation of the Organic Act of the territory and on the ground that the subject-matter of the act was not set forth in the title. The demurrer was overruled. The plaintiff in error declined to amend and judgment was accordingly entered against it for the sum demanded in the complaint and adjudging that the same be a first and paramount lien upon all the property of the plaintiff in error. The question on which decision turned was whether or not the tax so imposed by the statute is an excise tax or a property tax. The plaintiff in error contended that it was the latter. The court below ruled that it was the former.
John A Clark, of Fairbanks, Alaska, and Sloss, Ackerman & Bradley of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff in error.
John Rustgard, Atty. Gen., and Guy B. Erwin, U.S. Atty., of Fairbanks, Alaska, for the Territory of Alaska.
Before GILBERT and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges, and WOLVERTON, District judge.
GILBERT Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The plaintiff in error contends that in levying the tax prescribed in section 3, the Legislature imposed a tax upon each article of property handled by the fur dealer under his license, and that it is therefore an ad valorem tax on property, and void for the reason that it is not levied in accordance with the provisions of the Organic Act, section 9 of which provides that--
It is not disputed that the tax here involved is valid, if it is an excise tax, as distinguished from a property tax. In determining its nature, section 1 and section 3 must be construed together. Property taxes are taxes assessed on all property of a certain class in proportion to its value on a specified date. It is assessed at a stated period and collected at an appointed time. An excise tax, as the term itself indicates, is a sum cut out of that which is received or enjoyed by the person subjected thereto. It includes every tax imposed upon the privilege of performing an act or engaging in a business or occupation. Society for Savings v. Coite, 6 Wall. 594, 18 L.Ed. 897. Measured by these definitions the tax here in question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Letterman Digital Arts Ltd. v. City of S.F.
...a lease. (See, e.g., U.S. v. Wells Fargo Bank (1988) 485 U.S. 351, 355, 108 S.Ct. 1179, 99 L.Ed.2d 368 ; Northern Commercial Co v. Territory of Alaska (9th Cir. 1923) 289 F. 786, 787 ; Brunton v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1942) 20 Cal.2d 202, 207, 124 P.2d 831 ; Tin Tin Corp. v.......
-
Flynn v. State Tax Comm'n
...as witness the remarks of Circuit Judge Gilbert of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, speaking for that court in Northern Commercial Co. of Alaska v. Alaska, 289 F. 786, 787, where he said: “The reasoning is not convincing, and we incline toward the views expressed in the dissenting opinio......
-
Robison v. Dwyer
...activity. It is immaterial that the wheat is a product not ready for consumption when the tax is levied. Northern Commercial Co. of Alaska v. Territory of Alaska, 9 Cir., 289 F. 786. Reasonableness of classification and uniformity within that classification were held lacking. This is error.......
-
Pauley v. State of California
...Justice Holmes in the Alaska Fish Co. Case, supra. Another territorial statute of Alaska was involved in Northern Commercial Co. v. Territory of Alaska (C. C. A. 9) 289 F. 786, 787. In that case, however, the license tax was even more nearly like the one at bar, for there, too, the amount o......