Standard Dredging Corp. v. State
Decision Date | 30 June 1960 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 765 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | STANDARD DREDGING CORPORATION v. STATE of Alabama. |
Martin & Blakey, Birmingham, Frank H. Hawthorne, Montgomery, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, Robt. E. Leake, Jr., and Rene H. Himel, Jr., New Orleans, La., for appellant.
John Patterson, Atty. Gen., Willard W. Livingston and Wm. H. Burton, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal by the Standard Dredging Corporation (herein referred to as Standard) from a decree of the circuit court of Montgomery County, in equity, sustaining an assessment made against it by the State for a contractor's license tax prescribed by § 496, Tit. 51, Code 1940. Our problem is to determine whether such license tax may validly be levied against Standard as a consequence of its acceptance and performance of a contract with the United States for maintenance dredging of the navigation channel in Mobile Bay.
Except for certain exhibits, and the testimony of one witness for the State (H. S. Phifer, Chief of the License Tax Division of the Department of Revenue) taken orally before the trial court, the facts were stipulated as follows:
'2--The corporation's Southern Division, whose operations are supervised, directed and controlled from its division office at New Orleans, Louisiana, operates three hydraulic dredges (among which is the Dredge Diesel), with auxiliary vessels and attendant plant (among which are the Tugs Peter and Maryel), in the States of Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.
'3--During the entire period from October 1, 1952 through September 30, 1953 (the period for which the tax at issue herein was levied) said corporation was duly qualified to do business in the State of Alabama, paid its franchise taxes with respect to such period, and was duly licensed by the State Licensing Board of General Contractors to practice general contracting in Alabama.
'6--Work under said contract was subject to the direction and supervision, on behalf of the United States, of the United States Corps of Engineers, which has the responsibility of maintaining, repairing and improving the navigable harbors and waterways of the United States including Mobile Bay.
There is no dispute that Mobile Bay, where the dredging work was done, is a part of the territorial waters of the State of Alabama.
The position taken by Standard is (I) that the license tax imposed by § 496, Tit. 51, Code 1940, supra, is on the privilege of accepting or making contracts and, as such, may not be exacted 'for the privilege of accepting or making a contract with the United States of America under the circumstances' of this case.
Alternatively, it is insisted that, if it should be held that the license tax is directed against the privilege of performing work under contract and not for centracting therefor, the tax as imposed against Standard's activities here involved is invalid (II) 'as a direct burden on interstate commerce', and (III) 'as an impairment of the exclusive admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States, and of the Federal maritime coasting licenses of appellant's vessels.'
We are unable to agree with Standard's insistence that § 496 'purports to levy the tax on the privilege of 'accepting' contracts,' and only on such privilege. Accordingly, there is no occasion to discuss the further insistence that the tax 'may not be imposed on the privilege of contracting with the United States of America.'
Section 496, to the extent here pertinent, provides as follows:
[Emphasis supplied.]- It is to be noted that § 496 was amended on September 17, 1953 (Act No. 749, Acts 1953, Vol. II, p. 1012), after the license here involved became due and payable. The amendment added the following phrase after the word 'ascertained' in the third sentence, viz.: 'on the basis of the gross amount of all orders or contracts accepted, exclusive of orders or contracts pertaining to state or county road and bridge projects.' The amendment is not applicable here.
We think a fair and reasonable interpretation of § 496, when...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilburn Quarries, LLC v. State Dept. of Revenue
...consideration." Bean Dredging, L.L.C. v. Alabama Dep't of Revenue, 855 So.2d 513, 517 (Ala.2003) (citing Standard Dredging Corp. v. State, 271 Ala. 22, 28, 122 So.2d 280, 285 (1960); and State v. Birmingham Rail & Locomotive Co., 259 Ala. 443, 448, 66 So.2d 884, 889 (1953)). As discussed pr......
-
Taylor v. Thompson
... ... 16 charge error in the refusal of the court to allow plaintiff to state the amount of his medical bill from one of his doctors, and the failure to ... ...
-
Bean Dredging v. ALABAMA DEPT. OF REVENUE
...the tax laws have construed a tax statute, their construction should be given favorable consideration. Standard Dredging Corp. v. State, 271 Ala. 22, 28, 122 So.2d 280, 285 (1960); State v. Birmingham Rail & Locomotive Co., 259 Ala. 443, 448, 66 So.2d 884, 889 (1953). While tax-exemption cl......
-
Family Discount Stamp Co. of Ga., Division of Sales Promotion, Inc. v. State
...680, 87 S.E. 748. In Graves v. State, 258 Ala. 359, 62 So.2d 446; Haden v. Olan Mills (Ala.), 135 So.2d 388; and Standard Dredging Corp. v. State, 271 Ala. 22, 122 So.2d 280, there was local activity in Alabama which could be separated from the interstate process or flow of commerce. We do ......