State v. Chapman
Decision Date | 30 July 1925 |
Docket Number | No. 25782.,25782. |
Citation | 276 S.W. 32 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. v. CHAPMAN, License Collector, etc., et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Frank Y. Gladney and R. E. Blake, both of St. Louis, for relator International Shoe Co.
Eugene C. Slevin, of St. Louis, for respondent Oliver Chapman.
Oliver Senti, City Counselor, and Daniel Bartlett, Associate City Counselor, both of St. Louis, for respondents Robert Wycoff, Jr., Edwin Nolte, and Edward E. Butter.
This is a proceeding under writ of certiorari issued out of this court, whereby the relator seeks to set aside and annul in part the order of assessment of taxes made by respondents as members of the merchants' and manufacturers' board of equalization of the city of St. Louis, upon relator's license as a manufacturer.
The relator is a Delaware corporation, licensed to do business in this state, having its offices and principal place of business in the city of St. Louis, and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of shoes. Relator operates 43 factories, 7 of which are located in the city of St. Louis, 17 in other cities and towns in the state of Missouri, and 19 in cities and towns in other states.
Under an ordinance of the city of St. Louis there is levied, in addition to other taxes, a license tax upon manufacturers of one dollar per $1,000 of the value of their finished products. The amount of the tax is computed upon the sales price of the finished products. The sole issue made here is the validity of the tax levied against relator upon its license as a manufacturer, on account of shoes manufactured by it outside of the city of St. Louis, and sold and delivered to customers in other states. The amount in dispute is the sum of $76,871. Upon the issue here, and upon the question of the validity of the assessment of said sum of $76,871 by said board, there is and was no dispute as to the facts.
From the stipulated return we take the following, which sets forth the manner in which relator's business is conducted, and the values of its products in the year for which the tax was levied:
Under the foregoing, the relator expressed and here expresses its willingness to pay the sum of $18,428, being one dollar per thousand on $18,427,768.75, which is the entire value of (a) all shoes made during the year in its factories located in the city of St. Louis, regardless of where said shoes were sold; and of (b) all shoes sold by petitioner during the year in the State of Missouri, regardless of where such shoes were manufactured by it. The proceedings had before the board included the fixing of relator's ad valorem tax upon its raw materials, finished products, tools, machinery and appliances, but none of these matters was or is now the subject of dispute.
The contention of relator was and is that in respect of shoes manufactured by it in states other than Missouri, and sold and delivered by it to customers in other states, it was engaged in interstate commerce, which constituted a right or privilege not subject to taxation under said ordinance. The view of the board of equalization was that the sales made in the manner aforesaid, through traveling salesmen and otherwise, constituted local sales within the meaning and intent of the ordinance of the city, and were properly included in the computation of the total sales made by relator, as a manufacturer, for the ascertainment of its license tax.
In undertaking to reach the ultimate conclusion in this case it seems more convenient to consider first, and chiefly, the grounds of the defense of respondents. That defense is attacked"in the reply brief for relator. It is founded upon the ruling made in American Manufacturing Co. v. St. Louis, 270 Mo. 40, 192 S. W. 402, and the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in American Mfg. Co. v. St. Louis, 250 U. S. 459, 39 S. Ct. 522, 63 L. Ed. 1084, and next, upon the ordinance of the city, defining the term "manufacturer," followed with the contention that the question of interstate commerce is not involved, nor relevant under the facts of this case. These matters we consider in the order named.
In the case of the American Mfg. Co., 270 Mo. 40, 192 S. W. 402, the tax involved was the manufacturer's license tax of that company, and the suit was to recover an alleged excess of tax, paid by it to the city. In that case the goods manufactured by the plaintiff, and forming the basis of the issue, were manufactured in St. Louis, under its license as a manufacturer, obtained from that city. The tax claimed by the city was one measured by the amount of sales of the company's products, wherever they might be sold, or a tax upon the privilege of manufacturing, graduated according to the extent to which the company availed itself, of that privilege. In that case, goods, all made in St. Louis, were in part stored there, and in part removed to and stored in warehouses in other states. Thence, from either of these, orders were filled. The case in its application to the business conducted by this relator involved sales made through the St. Louis office of the company of goods made in St. Louis, but shipped from points other than St. Louis, to states other than Missouri; and also included the claim that substantially all the sales were effected only through the home office in New York, or, through being confirmed by the home office in New York.
The claim of the company there was that its liability was measured by the sales of products not only manufactured in St. Louis, but also sold in St. Louis, and that the amount of its...
To continue reading
Request your trial