Rainier Nat. Park Co. v. Henneford, 25454.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Writing for the Court | BLAKE, Justice. |
| Citation | 45 P.2d 617,182 Wash. 159 |
| Parties | RAINIER NAT. PARK CO. v. HENNEFORD et al. |
| Decision Date | 24 May 1935 |
| Docket Number | 25454. |
45 P.2d 617
182 Wash. 159
RAINIER NAT. PARK CO.
v.
HENNEFORD et al.
No. 25454.
Supreme Court of Washington
May 24, 1935
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; John M. Wilson, Judge.
Action by the Rainier National Park Company against Harold H. Henneford and others, constituting the tax commission of the state of Washington. From a judgment dismissing the action after demurrer to the complaint was sustained, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
[182 Wash. 160] Grosscup & Morrow and Hayden, Metzger & Blair, all of Tacoma, for appellant.
G. W. Hamilton and E. P. Donnelly, both of Olympia, for respondents.
BLAKE, Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an action for injunctive relief upon sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. The complaint challenges the right of the state to collect from plaintiff the tax imposed on businesses and occupations under Laws of 1933, c. 191, p. 869.
Appellant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of West Virginia. On April 8, 1928, the Secretary of the Interior of the United States entered into a contract with appellant, by the terms of which the latter was granted, for a term of twenty years, the right to establish, maintain, and operate facilities for the accommodation and entertainment of visitors to Rainier National Park. The concessions included were the rights to operate and maintain hotels, inns, lodges, camps, playgrounds, and facilities for transportation. By the terms of the contract, the appellant obligated itself to exercise its rights 'in such manner as the Secretary shall deem in every respect satisfactory and designed to promote the object for which the park was created and established.' Moreover, it was agreed that the appellant should file with the Secretary a tariff or schedule of charges to be made for the several kinds of service given, and that such tariff should be subject to such modifications 'not inconsistent with a reasonable profit on the investment of the company in the park' as the Secretary might see fit to make.
The objections of appellant to the tax, as we understand[182 Wash. 161] counsel's argument, are twofold: First, that the imposition sought to be levied under Laws of 1933, c. 191, p. 869, is a license tax which the state has no power to impose upon appellant, because its rights derive from the government of the United States; second, that, under the terms of its contract with the Secretary of the Interior,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Silas Mason Co., Inc. v. State Tax Com'n, 26059.
...by the rate of five-tenths of one per cent.' Laws 1933, Ex.Sess., p. 157, § 1. It was held in Rainier National Park Co. v. Henneford, 182 Wash. 159, 45 P.2d 617, [61 P.2d 1270] that while the tax imposed by chapter 191 is an excise not a property tax, it is in no sense a license tax and is ......
-
Smith v. State, No. 37249
...to engaging in business within the state. It is, on the contrary, a tax imposed for revenue only. Rainier Nat. Park Co. v. Henneford, 182 Wash. 159, 45 P.2d 617 (1935); Mason, Inc. v. State Tax Comm., 188 Wash. 98, 61 P.2d 1269 (1936). Similarly, we upheld a public utility tax upon the appo......
-
Yosemite Park & Curry Co. v. Department of Motor Vehicles, No. 18476
...Nat. Park Co. v. Martin, D.C., 18 F.Supp. 481, affirmed 302 U.S. 661, 58 S.Ct. 478, 82 L.Ed. 511; Rainier Nat. Park Co. v. Henneford, 182 Wash. 159, 45 P.2d 617, certiorari denied 296 U.S. 647, 56 S.Ct. 307, 80 L.Ed. 460; Superior Bath House Co. v. McCarroll, 312 U.S. 176, 61 S.Ct. 503, 85 ......
-
Rainier Nat. Park Co. v. Martin, No. 582.
...property taxes, but are excise taxes. State ex rel. Stiner v. Yelle, 174 Wash. 402, 25 P.(2d) 91; Rainier National Park Co. v. Henneford, 182 Wash. 159, 161, 45 P.(2d) 617. Such taxes are therefore levied against the corporation, the right to tax which was specifically 18 F. Supp. 487 reser......
-
Silas Mason Co., Inc. v. State Tax Com'n, 26059.
...by the rate of five-tenths of one per cent.' Laws 1933, Ex.Sess., p. 157, § 1. It was held in Rainier National Park Co. v. Henneford, 182 Wash. 159, 45 P.2d 617, [61 P.2d 1270] that while the tax imposed by chapter 191 is an excise not a property tax, it is in no sense a license tax and is ......
-
Smith v. State, No. 37249
...to engaging in business within the state. It is, on the contrary, a tax imposed for revenue only. Rainier Nat. Park Co. v. Henneford, 182 Wash. 159, 45 P.2d 617 (1935); Mason, Inc. v. State Tax Comm., 188 Wash. 98, 61 P.2d 1269 (1936). Similarly, we upheld a public utility tax upon the appo......
-
Yosemite Park & Curry Co. v. Department of Motor Vehicles, No. 18476
...Nat. Park Co. v. Martin, D.C., 18 F.Supp. 481, affirmed 302 U.S. 661, 58 S.Ct. 478, 82 L.Ed. 511; Rainier Nat. Park Co. v. Henneford, 182 Wash. 159, 45 P.2d 617, certiorari denied 296 U.S. 647, 56 S.Ct. 307, 80 L.Ed. 460; Superior Bath House Co. v. McCarroll, 312 U.S. 176, 61 S.Ct. 503, 85 ......
-
Rainier Nat. Park Co. v. Martin, No. 582.
...property taxes, but are excise taxes. State ex rel. Stiner v. Yelle, 174 Wash. 402, 25 P.(2d) 91; Rainier National Park Co. v. Henneford, 182 Wash. 159, 161, 45 P.(2d) 617. Such taxes are therefore levied against the corporation, the right to tax which was specifically 18 F. Supp. 487 reser......