State ex rel. Arpin v. Eberhardt

• Decision Date: 17 June 1914
• Docket Number: No. 176.,176.
• Citation: 158 Wis. 20,147 N.W. 1016
• Parties: STATE EX REL. ARPIN v. EBERHARDT, COUNTY CLERK.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

158 Wis. 20

147 N.W. 1016

STATE EX REL. ARPIN

v.EBERHARDT, COUNTY CLERK.

No. 176.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 17, 1914.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wood County; Byron B. Park, Judge.

Action by the State, on the relation of J. B. Arpin, against F. H. Eberhardt, County Clerk, etc., to reverse the ruling of the county board of review of Wood county, inserting a certain item of income in petitioner's income tax statement for the year 1912. From a judgment for petitioner, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This is an action brought by the petitioner to reverse and set aside the ruling of the county board of review of Wood County inserting a certain item of income in petitioner's income tax statement for the year 1912. The complaint alleges that the petitioner is and has been all his life a citizen and resident of Grand Rapids, Wis.; that on March 27, 1913, he made a written report, as required by law, of his income for the year 1912; that the body of the report was not made out by the petitioner, and through inadvertence was made to include the item “Dividends on Stocks, * * * $21,821.77,” but that said income was not, nor was any part thereof, derived from rentals, stocks, bonds, securities, or evidences of indebtedness, and was in fact derived wholly from sources outside the state, to wit, from a dredging business in the state of Texas, carried on within that state, and by a partnership composed of the petitioner and two other partners, and that all the property and machinery belonging to said business were located in the state of Texas and there taxed; that petitioner appeared before the county board of review at its annual session and asked to be permitted to correct his report as to said item; that said board of review, after hearing petitioner's evidence, ruled that under the law the petitioner should be assessed for income tax on said item of income, and it was so ordered and the assessment made accordingly. On petitioner's appeal to the circuit court from the ruling of the county board, the court, at the close of the trial, entered judgment in favor of the petitioner, reversing and setting aside the action of the county board, and from such judgment defendant appeals.Goggins & Brazeau, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.

W. C. Owen, Atty. Gen., B. H. Stebbins, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Charles E. Briere, Dist. Atty., of Grand Rapids, for respondent.

BARNES, J. (after stating the facts as above).

[1] Section 1087m1, Stats. 1911, provides for an income tax to be paid “by such persons and from such sources as hereinafter described.”

Subsection 3 of section 1087m2, Stats. of 1911, reads:

“The tax shall be assessed, levied and collected upon all income, not hereinafter exempted, received by every person residing within the state, and by every nonresident of the state upon such income as is derived from sources within the state or within its jurisdiction. So much of the income of any person residing within the state as is derived from rentals, stocks, bonds, securities or evidences of indebtedness shall be assessed and taxed, whether such income is derived from sources within or without the state: Provided, that any person engaged in business within and without the state shall, with respect to income other than that derived from rentals, stocks, bonds, securities or evidences of indebtedness, be taxed only upon that proportion of such income as is derived from business transacted and property located within the state, which shall be determined in the manner specified in subdivision (e) of section 1770b, as far as applicable.”

The question in the case is whether the income received by a resident of Wisconsin from a copartnership of which he is a member, and which is doing business in the state of Texas, is taxable; it being conceded that the profits distributed were all derived from sources without the state. The answer to this question depends on the meaning of the statute above quoted. The first sentence, standing alone, is indefinite in that it is reasonably susceptible of two meanings. It might well mean that all income of a resident of the state derived from any source whatever is taxable, and that all income of a nonresident derived from sources within the state is likewise taxable. The sentence might also mean simply that all income of residents and nonresidents of the state, derived from sources within the state, is taxable. Because of the omission of a comma after the word “state,” where it occurs the second time in the sentence, the first construction would appear to be the more reasonable. The omission of the punctuation mark, however, is not very significant, provided it appears from what follows that the second construction is in accord with the legislative intent. The statute must be read and construed as...