State Tax Commission v. Commissioners of Baltimore County
| Decision Date | 27 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | 40. |
| Citation | 114 A. 717,138 Md. 668 |
| Parties | STATE TAX COMMISSION v. COMMISSIONERS OF BALTIMORE COUNTY |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Baltimore County; Frank I. Duncan, Judge.
Proceedings by the State Tax Commission in the matter of the taxation of the shares of stock of the Commerce Trust Company. From an order of the Commission, the County Commissioners of Baltimore County appealed to the circuit court, and from an order reversing the order of the State Tax Commission and directing it to pass an order correcting the distribution of the assessment of the shares of the Commerce Trust Company the Tax Commission appeals. Order of circuit court reversed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER STOCKBRIDGE, and OFFUTT, JJ.
Amos W W. Woodcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Alexander Armstrong, Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Allan C. Girdwood, of Baltimore (Edward H. Burke, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
The Commerce Trust Company of Baltimore City had a capital stock consisting of 10,000 shares, of which 9,685 were transferred to T. Edward Hambleton of Baltimore county, William G. Baker, Jr., and Virginius G. Dunnington of Baltimore City, trustees under a voting trust agreement, dated June 12, 1919. There is some difference in the statements in the briefs as to the exact number of the 9,685 shares which are held by nonresidents of the state-that of the Attorney General stating that there were 3,551 and that of the appellee that there were 3,590 shares-but that is immaterial for the purposes of this opinion. The shares were valued by the State Tax Commission at $62.50 each, and it passed the following order:
On the 13th of October, 1920, the county commissioners of Baltimore county filed in the circuit court for that county an "Appeal from the State Tax Commission." The petition quotes the above order of the State Tax Commission, alleges that Baltimore county was entitled to one-third of the aggregate assessment represented by the 9,685 shares, and also 50 other shares at $62.50 per share, but that the Commission had only certified to that county for the year 1920 the sum of $2,812.50, being for 45 shares.
The case was set for hearing, and on November 6, 1920, the Attorney General, representing the State Tax Commission, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal; the principal reason assigned therefor being that the county commissioners had no right of appeal. On the 18th of February, 1921, the circuit court passed an order dismissing that motion, reversing the order of the State Tax Commission, and directing it to pass an order correcting the distribution of the assessment of the shares of the Commerce Trust Company, "and that the assessment on shares be entered and certified by the State Tax Commission to the places of residence of the respective shareholders, and that so far as the assessment representing the 9,685 shares of capital stock of said company standing in the name of the three trustees is concerned, one-third of the total amount represented by 9,685 shares shall be certified to the respective place of residence of each trustee." From that order this appeal was taken. The questions presented are:
First, as to the right of the county commissioners of Baltimore county to appeal.
Second, whether the residences of the voting trustees or of the owners of the shares transferred to them fix the situs for the taxation of such shares.
1. The State Tax Commission was created by the Act of 1914, c. 841, and large powers were conferred on it. The act provided for the appointment by the Commission of a supervisor of assessments in each county of the state and in Baltimore City, abolished the office of State Tax Commissioner, and all of the duties imposed on him or powers given him devolved upon the State Tax Commission.
The provisions for appeal by that act are contained in what are now sections 239 and 245 of article 81 of the Code. It is clear that the right to take this appeal cannot be sustained under section 239, as it provides that "any taxpayer, taxpayers, or city, town or village may demand a hearing before the county commissioners or appeal tax court of Baltimore City as to the assessment of any property or any unit of tax value," and that "any taxpayer, taxpayers, or city, town or village having been assessed by the order of the county commissioners or appeal tax court of Baltimore City, after a hearing as hereinbefore provided, may appeal to the State Tax Commission; or the supervisor may appeal from any decision." But, of course, it could not have been intended to give the county commissioners the right of appeal from their own order, and it did not give them an appeal from the State Tax Commission. The third paragraph of that section, in providing that "there shall be an appeal to court on questions of law only from decisions of the State Tax Commission," etc., cannot properly be construed, as contended by the appellee, to mean that there could be appeals on all questions of law, regardless of by whom they were taken, as it had provided in a previous paragraph by whom appeals could be taken.
It is likewise clear that section 245 does not authorize the county commissioners to appeal to court from the action of the State Tax Commission, as the Act of 1910, c. 430, referred to in that section, only provides that "any person or persons, or corporation, claiming to be aggrieved because of any assessment made by county commissioners of any one of the counties of this state, or because of the failure to reduce or abate an existing assessment, may, by petition, appeal," etc. If "any person or persons or corporation" takes an appeal from the county commissioners to the circuit court, then an appeal to this court can be taken by the petitioner or petitioners or by the county commissioners. Now, by virtue of the provision in section 245, that the State Tax Commission shall be substituted for the court, the appeal is to that Commission, instead of the circuit court, but there is no authority given in that section, or any other that we have found, for an original appeal by the county commissioners to the State Tax Commission, and there is no appeal by them provided for from the action of that Commission. Under the Act of 1908, c. 167 (section 18 of the article 81) the original appeal in Baltimore was from the appeal tax court of Baltimore, and hence the mayor and city council was given the right of appeal, as well as any person or persons or corporation claiming to be aggrieved by the action of the appeal tax court.
The appellee, after contending that the last paragraph of section 239 is unlimited, and provides for appeals from a decision of the State Tax Commission as regards any assessment or question of law, and arguing from that the county commissioners could appeal, said in its brief, "This contention of the appellee and the view of the judge below are borne out by all of the cases in the Court of Appeals from action of the State Tax Commission," and cited Mayor, etc., of Baltimore v. C. & P. Tel. Co., 131 Md. 50, 101 A. 677; Postal Tel. Co. v. Harford County, 131 Md. 96, 101 A. 600; Mayor, etc., of Hyattsville v. C. & P. Tel. Co., 131 Md. 589, 103 A 133; Mayor, etc., of Baltimore v. German Fire Ins. Co., 132 Md. 380, 103 A. 980; and Mayor, etc., of Baltimore v. Machen, 132 Md. 618, 104 A. 175. Those authorities do not support that contention. In the first one mentioned the telephone company appealed to the State Tax Commission from an assessment made by the appeal tax court of the physical structures of the company in Baltimore City. The State Tax Commission reversed that assessment, and an appeal was taken to the Baltimore City court by the city, which it was expressly authorized to do by the Act of 1908, c. 167, continued in force by section 245. In the Postal Tel. Co. Case the company applied to the county commissioners to abate an assessment which they refused to do, and the company appealed to the State Tax Commission, which increased the assessment. The company then appealed to the circuit court for Harford county, which dismissed its appeal, and an appeal to this court was taken by it and the lower court was affirmed. In the Hyattsville Case the telephone company appealed from an assessment of the personal property made by the municipality, which it was not authorized to make as the State Tax Commission took such property into consideration in assessing the shares of stock of the company. The point was made that there was no provision for an appeal in such case to the State Tax Commission, but we held that, regardless of whether it was technically an appeal, the Commission had control over the assessments of corporations and they had the right to apply to it for relief against an unauthorized assessment. In the German Fire Insurance Co. Case an application was made by the company to the State Tax Commission to deduct the amount invested by it in certain mortgages, in computing the value of its shares of stock, which the Commission refused to do and the company appealed to the Baltimore City court, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial