State Railroad Tax Cases Taylor, Collector Et Al v. Secor Et Al Miller, Collector Et Al v. Jessup Et Al Miller, Collector Et Al v. Kidder Et Al
Citation | 92 U.S. 575,23 L.Ed. 663 |
Parties | STATE RAILROAD TAX CASES. TAYLOR, COLLECTOR, ET AL., v. SECOR ET AL. MILLER, COLLECTOR, ET AL., v. JESSUP ET AL. MILLER, COLLECTOR, ET AL., v. KIDDER ET AL |
Decision Date | 01 October 1875 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
APPEALS from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
These were bills of injunction to restrain the collection of taxes assessed on certain railroads in the State of Illinois, and, as they raised the same questions of law, were heard together. The complainants in the first-mentioned case are trustees and mortgagees of the Toledo, Peoria, and Warsaw Railroad Company; in the second, stockholders in the Chicago and Alton Railroad Company; and in the third, stockholders in the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company.
To a proper understanding of the questions raised, reference is necessary to the following provisions of the constitution and statutes of the State of Illinois.
Sects. 1, 6, 9, and 10 of art. 9, and sect. 10 of art. 11, of the constitution, declare:——
' .
' .
' .
' .
' .
'An Act for the assessment of property and for the collection of taxes,' approved March 30, 1872, in force July 1, 1872, among other provisions contains the following:——
'
'First, All personal property, except as herein otherwise directed, shall be valued at its fair cash value.
'Second, Every credit, for a sum certain, payable either in money or labor, shall be valued at a fair cash value for the sum so payable; if for any article of property, or for labor, or services of any kind, it shall be valued at the current price of such property, labor, or service.
'Third, Annuities and royalties shall be valued at their then present total value.
- 'SECT. 6. Personal property shall be listed in the manner following:——
* * * * *
'Eighth, The property of a body politic or corporate, by the president, or proper agent or officer thereof.'
'
' .
' .
'SECT. 41. They shall, in the month of May of the year eighteen hundred and seventy-three, and at the same time in each year thereafter, when required, make out and file with the county-clerks of the respective counties in which the railroad may be located, a statement or schedule showing the property held for right of way, and the length of the main and all side and second tracks and turnouts in such county, and in each city, town, and village in the county, through or into which the road may run, and describing each tract of land, other than a city, town, or village lot, through which the road may run, in accordance with the United States surveys, giving the width and length of the strip of land held in each tract, and the number of acres thereof. They shall also state the value of improvements and stations located on the right of way. New companies shall make such statement in May next after the location of their roads. When such statement shall have been once made, it shall not be necessary to report the description as hereinbefore required, unless directed so to do by the county board; but the company shall, during the month of May, annually, report the value of such property by the description set forth in the next section of this act, and note all additions or changes in such right of way as shall have occurred.
'SECT. 42. Such right of way, including the superstructures of main, side, or second tracks and turnouts, and the stations and improvements of the railroad company on such right of way, shall be held to be real estate for the purposes of taxation, and denominated 'railroad track,' and shall be so listed and valued; and shall be described in the assessment thereof as a strip of land extending on each side of such railroad track, and embracing the same, together with all the stations and improvements thereon, commencing at a point where such railroad track crosses the boundary line in entering the county, city, town, or village, and extending to the point where such track crosses the boundary line leaving such county, city, town, or village, or to the point of termination in the same, as the case may be, containing—acres, more or less (inserting name of county, township, city, town, or village, boundary line of same, and number of acres, and length in feet); and, when advertised or sold for taxes, no other description shall be necessary.
'SECT. 43. The value of the 'railroad track' shall be listed and taxed in the several counties, towns, villages, districts, and cities in the proportion that the length of the main track in such county, town, village, district, or city bears to the whole length of the road in this State, except the value of the side or second track, and all turnouts, and all station-houses, d ep ots, machine-shops, or other buildings belonging to the road, which shall be taxed in the county, town, village, district, or city in which the same are located.
'SECT. 44. The movable property belonging to a railroad company shall be held to be personal property, and denominated, for the purpose of taxation, 'rolling-stock.' Every person, company, or corporation, owning, constructing, or operating a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
San Diego Bldg. Contractors Assn. v. City Council
...taxing officers have adopted a system of undervaluation throughout a county . . .. The answer of this court in the State Railroad Cases ((1875)) 92 U.S. 575, 23 L.Ed. 663 . . . Was that it was hard to believe that the proposition was seriously made.' (Emphasis added.) (239 U.S. at p. 445, 3......
-
In re Assessment of Kan. City S. Ry. Co., Case Number: 25038
...26 L. Ed. 658: Pittsburgh & C. Railway v. Backus, 154 U.S. 421, 38 L. Ed. 1031, 14 S. Ct. 1114." ¶26 See, also, State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U.S. 575, 23 L. Ed. 663. ¶27 In the case of Auditor of State v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 6 Kan. 500, the county clerks, constituting a board of ap......
-
State ex rel. Forman v. Wheatley
......Rowe, 128 Wis. 326, 8 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cases, 595, a similar case, the supreme court of. ... Taxation (3 Ed.), 786; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U.S. 575,. 609. Some of the cases ... authorizing the tax collector to assess and collect taxes,. and boards of ... 624, 43 P. 565; and State ex rel. Miller v. Buchanan, 24 W.Va. 365, 384; Norman v. ... v. Meadows, 1 Kan. 90; Williams v. Taylor, 83. Tex. 670, 19 S.W. 159; Morton v. ......
-
Adams v. Colonial & United States Mortg. Co.
... 34 So. 482 82 Miss. 263 WIRT ADAMS, STATE REVENUE AGENT, v. COLONIAL AND UNITED STATES MORTGAGE COMPANY. TWO CASES Supreme Court of Mississippi April 20, 1903 . ... Affirmed. . . R. N. Miller, for appellant. [ * ] . . . The. ... officio tax collector of that county, and a citizen of that. state, ...In that case, a railroad company,. incorporated both in Ohio and in ......
-
The Unitary Business Principle Applies To More Than Corporate Net Income Taxes: Reynolds Metals Company V. Department Of Treasury
...Taxes, 445 U.S. 425, 439 (1980). 18 504 U.S. 768, 784 (1992) (emphasis added). 19 Id. at 777-78 (emphasis added). 20 State R. Tax Cases, 92 U.S. 575 (1876); Mass. v. W. Union Tel. Co., 141 U.S. 40 (1891); Maine v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 142 U.S. 217 (1891); see also Allied-Signal, 504 U.S. 21......
-
STATE DIGITAL SERVICES TAXES: A GOOD AND PERMISSIBLE IDEA (DESPITE WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD).
...L. REV. 355, 375-82 (2015). (167) See, e.g., Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U.S. 194. 220-29 (1897); State R.R. Tax Cases, 92 U.S. 575, 608-11 (1876); Del. R.R. Tax, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 206, 231-32 (168) See Adams Express Co., 165 U.S. at 221; State R.R. Tax Cases, 92 U.S. at 6......
-
AGGLOMERATION AND STATE PERSONAL INCOME TAXES: TIME TO APPORTION (WITH CRITICAL COMMENTARY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE'S COMPLAINT AGAINST MASSACHUSETTS).
...71 FORDHAM L. REV. 149 (2002). (26.) See Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U.S. 194, 228-29 (1897); State R. Tax Cases, 92 U.S. 575, 611-12 (1875); In re Del. R.R. Tax, 85 U.S. 206, 219-20 (1873). (27.) Container Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 159,170 (1983) (quoting Hans R......
-
Brief of Tax Executives Institute, Inc. as amicus curiae: on July 18, 2007 Tax Executives Institute filed this brief with the Supreme Court of the United States.
...item sought to be taxed was "unitary" with, or functionally related to, the tax-payer's in-state activities. State R.R. Tax Cases, 92 U.S. 575, 608 (1875). In 1980, this Court encapsulized its prior holdings when it declared in Mobil Oil Corp. that the unitary business principle is the "lin......