Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Com.

• Decision Date: 22 April 1915
• Citation: 175 S.W. 337,164 Ky. 255
• Parties: NORTHWESTERN MUT. LIFE INS. CO. v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

175 S.W. 337

164 Ky. 255

NORTHWESTERN MUT. LIFE INS. CO. v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 22, 1915

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Chancery Branch, First Division.

Proceeding by the Commonwealth of Kentucky by a revenue agent against the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff on the Commonwealth's appeal to the circuit court, the defendant appeals. Reversed.

Tyler Barnett, of Louisville, for appellant.

Matt J Holt, of Louisville, for appellee.

NUNN J.

This is a proceeding begun in the Jefferson county court by a revenue agent against the appellant, seeking the assessment of certain alleged omitted property for the tax years 1907 to 1911, inclusive. From an adverse judgment in the county court, the revenue agent appealed to the circuit court, where a judgment was rendered assessing as omitted property for each of the years named $400 cash on hand and $12,500 cash on deposit in bank. From this judgment the life insurance company appeals. Numerous questions are raised, but it is only necessary to consider the pleading or statement filed.

It is alleged that the appellant is a foreign corporation with home office in Milwaukee, Wis., but doing business in Kentucky with a general agency in Louisville, and that on the 1st of September, in the years named, the appellant was the owner and in the possession of the cash and deposits above named "and all of which on the respective dates named had a taxable situs in Jefferson county, Ky." It is further alleged that the cash on hand and on deposit "was the proceeds from local business done by the general office of said company in Louisville; * * * all of said property having a local or business situs for taxation in this state and county was omitted from assessment for taxation for the years named."

The court overruled appellant's motion to require the revenue agent to make his statement more specific. The appellant then answered, but made no reference to or denial of the allegations as to the "taxable situs" of the property. There is no other effort or attempt in the statement to locate the property. The cash may have been on hand at appellant's office in Milwaukee, or it may have been in Louisville; the deposits may have been in the Milwaukee banks, or they may have been in Louisville banks. The fact that the money was proceeds from local business would not serve to keep it in Louisville or render unlikely its transmission to Milwaukee. The only fact stated which at all connects the company with Louisville is the allegation that its principal office and place of business, and general agency, in the state of Kentucky, was in Louisville. This fact was not denied, but it would not follow that the cash on hand...