State of Florida v. Mellon
| Decision Date | 03 January 1927 |
| Citation | 273 U.S. 12,71 L.Ed. 511,47 S.Ct. 265 |
| Parties | STATE OF FLORIDA v. MELLON, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. No. ___ Original |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. John B. Johnson, of Tallahassee, Fla., and Peter O. Knight, of Tampa, Fla., for the State of Florida.
[Argument of Counsel from page 13 intentionally omitted] Mr. W. D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., and Robert P. Reeder, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for defendants.
[Argument of Counsel from page 14 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.
The state of Florida seeks leave to file a bill of complaint against the defendants, citizens of other states, to enjoin them from attempting to collect in Florida inheritance taxes imposed by section 301 of the Revenue Act of 1926, c. 27, 44 Stat. 9, 69, 70. A rule upon the defendants to show cause why such leave should not be granted was issued and answered.
The complaint alleges that under the Constitution of Florida no tax on inheritances can be levied by the state or under its authority; that, by section 301 of the act referred to, certain graduated taxes are imposed on the estates of decedents subject to the following provision:
It is further alleged that the defendants are officers of the United States and are seeking to enforce the provisions of section 301; that citizens of Florida have died since the act was passed, leaving estates subject to taxation under the terms of that section; that defendants have required and are requiring the legal representatives of such decedents to make returns under that section, and, unless such action is restrained, it will result in the withdrawal from Florida of several million dollars per annum, and thus diminish the revenues of the state derived largely from taxation of property therein; that the state is directly interested in the matter, because it raises by taxation a sufficient amount of revenue to pay the expenses of the state government otherwise than by imposing inheritance taxes or taxes on incomes; and that the provisions of the said section constitute an invasion of the sovereign rights of the state and a direct effort on the part of Congress to coerce the state into imposing an inheritance tax and to penalize it and its property and citizens for the failure to do so. It is further alleged that the state is directly interested in preventing the unlawful discrimination against its citizens which is effected by section 301, and in protecting them against the risk of prosecution for failure to comply with the enforcement provisions of the act; that the several states, except Florida, Alabama, and Nevada, levy inheritance taxes, but, by reason of the provisions of its Constitution, Florida cannot place its citizens on an equality with those of the other states in respect of the tax in question, and therefore the tax is not uniform throughout the United States, as required by section 8 of article 1 of the federal Constitution.
The allegations of the bill suggest two possible grounds upon which the asserted right of complainant to invoke the jurisdiction of this court may be supported: (a) That the state is directly injured because the imposition of the federal tax, in the absence of a state tax which may be credited, will cause the withdrawal of property from the state with the consequent loss to the state of subjects of taxation; and (b) that the citizens of the state are injured in such a way that the state may sue in their behalf as parens patriae. Neither ground is tenable.
While judicial relief sometimes may be granted to a quasi sovereign state under circumstances which would not justify relief if the suit were between private parties (Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230, 237, 27 S. Ct. 618, 51 L. Ed. 1038, 11 Ann. Cas. 488), nevertheless it must appear that the state has suffered a wrong furnishing ground for judicial redress or is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. State
...to file a suit in parens patriae against the United States for instituting an allegedly unconstitutional tax. Florida v. Mellon , 273 U.S. 12, 18, 47 S.Ct. 265, 71 L.Ed. 511 (1927) ; see also South Carolina v. Katzenbach , 383 U.S. 301, 324, 86 S.Ct. 803, 15 L.Ed.2d 769 (1966) (citing Mello......
-
Phillips v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...prohibitions against delegation of the taxing power or the requirement of geographical uniformity. Florida v. Mellon, 273 U. S. 12, 17, 47 S. Ct. 265, 71 L. Ed. 511; Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U. S. 55, 51 S. Ct. 49, 75 L. Ed. 156; Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U. S. 101, 117, 51 S. Ct. 58, 75 L. Ed. 2......
-
State of Georgia v. Pennsylvania Co
...within the rule of Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 43 S.Ct. 597, 67 L.Ed. 1078, and State of Florida v. Mellon, 273 U.S. 12, 47 S.Ct. 265, 71 L.Ed. 511. We take the other view, for we are of the opinion that Georgia as parens patriae and as proprietor of various insti......
-
State of South Carolina v. Katzenbach
...citizen. Com. of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 485—486, 43 S.Ct. 597, 600 601, 67 L.Ed. 1078; State of Florida v. Mellon, 273 U.S. 12, 18, 47 S.Ct. 265, 267, 71 L.Ed. 511. The objections to the Act which are raised under these provisions may therefore be considered only as addition......
-
State sovereign standing: often overlooked, but not forgotten.
...Co. v. Grannis, 273 U.S. 70, 75-76 (1927) (characterizing the relief sought in Sargent as "an abstract judicial declaration"). (87.) 273 U.S. 12, 15-16 (88.) Id. at 18. (89.) 301 U.S. 548, 592 (1937). (90.) 286 U.S. 529 (1932). Keogh was seeking to challenge the malapportionment of the Illi......
-
§1.1 Sources and Hierarchy of Law
...while conforming to the intent of the statute that established the law, regulation, or procedure. --------Notes:[2] Florida v. Mellon, 273 U.S. 12 (1927) ("The act is a law of the United States, made in pursuance of the Constitution, and therefore the supreme law of the land, the Constituti......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Quaker Oats Co., 318 U.S. at 228, §7.4.3 Federal Trade Commission v. Marc Ching, 2:20-cv-03775, §12.2.4 Florida v. Mellon, 273 U.S. 12 (1927), §1.1.1 Fmali Herb v. Heckler, 715 F.2d 1385 (1983), §§2.5, 5.2.6, 5.6.1, 7.4.2 Forest Laboratories v. Pillsbury Co., 452 F.2d 621 (1971), §8.1.4 ......