State v. Clement Nat. Bank

Citation84 Vt. 167,78 A. 944
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Vermont
Decision Date16 January 1911
PartiesSTATE v. CLEMENT NAT. BANK.

[Copyrighted material omitted.]

[Copyrighted material omitted.]

Munson, J., dissenting in part.

Exceptions from Rutland County Court; Alfred A. Hall, Judge.

Action by the State against the Clement National Bank to recover taxes. The case was heard on an agreed statement of facts, and from a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings exceptions. Judgment reversed, and judgment for plaintiff for $3,989.85.

Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and MUNSON, WATSON, HASELTON, and POWERS, JJ.

Clarke C. Fitts and Hale K. Darling, for plaintiff.

O. M. Barber and M. C. Webber, for defendant.

MUNSON, J. This case involves the construction and validity of certain provisions of chapter 37 of the Public Statutes, containing sections 804-820, and relating to the taxation of national bank deposits.

Section 804 provides, in substance, that every person having an interest-bearing deposit in a national bank in this state on the 1st day of April and October shall within 20 days thereafter report the amount thereof and the name of such bank to the commissioner of state taxes. Section 805, in connection with 806, provides that every resident of the state having such a deposit shall annually report to the listers of the town wherein he resides, in his tax inventory, the names of all banks located in this state wherein he then has or has had any such deposits during the year next preceding the 1st day of April, and the amount of such deposits. Section 807 provides that the listers in every town shall, on or before the 10th day of May, report to the commissioner of state taxes the names of all persons whose inventories show that they had interest-bearing deposits in a national bank in this state oh the 1st day of the preceding April, together with the amount of each individual deposit, and the name of the bank holding it. Section 808 provides that such reports shall be kept on file for three years after the taxes based on them become due, and be subject to the inspection of certain officials, one of whom is the state's attorney of the county wherein such bank has its principal place of business, or wherein said depositor, if a resident of this state, has his domicile. Section 809 provides that every person having such a deposit in a national bank in this state shall semiannually pay a tax to the state, and assesses such tax at the rate of 7/20 of 1 per cent. semiannually upon the amount of the deposit held by such bank on the 1st day of April and October, and requires that such taxes be paid to the State Treasurer semiannually on or before the last day of May and November. Section 810 provides that no other tax shall be assessed on such deposits, nor against the depositors on account thereof. Section 811 provides that a depositor who willfully fails to make such returns or pay such taxes shall forfeit 10 per cent. of such deposit to the use of the state for each month's delay in filing such return, and that such tax and forfeiture may be recovered in an action on the statute.

It is further provided by sections 814-816 that, if a national bank in this state so elects, it may pay to the state the taxes provided for as above, and that it shall be lawful for such bank to deduct the taxes so paid from the interest or deposits then or thereafter held by it belonging to the person from whom such tax became due; that if a bank elects to pay such taxes to the state, and to make certain returns elsewhere provided for, it shall semiannually, on or before the 1st day of April and October, file with the commissioner of state taxes a stipulation setting forth such fact; that the commissioner shall thereupon issue to the bank a certificate in duplicate showing such filing; that a bank filing such stipulation shall thereupon become liable to make such returns, and liable to the state for such tax for the six months named in such stipulation; and that no depositor in such bank shall be required to make the returns before specified for such six months' period. Section 817 provides that: "Every bank filing such stipulation shall thereupon become liable to the state for the amount of such tax of seven-twentieths of one per cent. of the average amount of such deposits held by such bank during the six months beginning with the first day of April and October respectively, for which such stipulation was filed."

The returns to be made by a bank, in case it elects to pay such taxes, are specified in section 818, which provides that, if a bank files such a stipulation on or before the 1st day of April, it shall, on or before the 31st day of the following October, file with the State Treasurer and the commissioner of state taxes a return showing the average amount of such deposits for the six months ending on the 30th day of September in that year, and shall pay to the State Treasurer the amount of such semiannual tax; and that, if a bank files a like stipulation on or before the 1st day of October, it shall file with said officers, on or before the 30th day of the following April, a return showing the average amount of such deposits for the six months ending with the 31st day of March next preceding the making of such return, and shall pay the tax for such semiannual period.

The state sues on a stipulation filed by the defendant under the foregoing provisions on the 1st day of October, 1908. By this stipulation the defendant agreed with the state that on or before the 30th day of April, 1909, it would make sworn returns to the State Treasurer and the commissioner of state taxes showing the average amount of all deposits held by it during the six months beginning with the 1st day of October, 1908, whereon the rate of interest paid or allowed by it to the depositors thereof exceeded 2 per cent. per annum, and that on or before the 30th day of April, 1909, it would pay to the State Treasurer a tax of 7/20 of 1 per cent. of the average amount of all such deposits. This agreement was expressed to be in consideration of and for the purpose of carrying out the statutory provisions which relieve the depositor from the making of returns and the payment of a tax in case such a stipulation is filed.

The case is presented by an agreed statement, from which the following facts appear: For several years the defendant has allowed certain depositors interest at a rate exceeding 2 per cent. per annum, payable on the 1st day of January and July, for such calendar months as their deposits have remained in the bank prior to the days named; but no interest is paid on such deposits unless they are in the bank on January 1st or July 1st. The bank has other depositors who receive certificates on which interest is paid at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum for each calendar month during which the deposit remains in the bank. Certain deposits were made subsequent to July 1, 1908, and withdrawn prior to January 1, 1909, and others were made subsequent to January 1, 1909, and withdrawn prior to July 1, 1909, some being withdrawn before and some after April 1st; and no interest was paid on any of these deposits. Some deposits were made after October 1, 1908, and withdrawn prior to April 1, 1909, part of which were in the bank on January 1, 1909, and drew interest at the aforesaid rate. There were also deposits in the bank on October 1, 1908, whereon interest at said rate was then allowed, which were withdrawn prior to March 31, 1909. Some persons who had deposits on October 1, 1908, and some who became depositors after that date ceased to be depositors before March 31, 1909. Part of the interest-bearing deposits in the bank on April 1, 1908, October 1, 1908, and April 1, 1909, were deposited by persons residing without this state. The aggregate of interest bearing deposits at the last-named date was $28,885.01 in excess of the average for the semiannual period ending March 31, 1909. The defendant has made payments under previous stipulations like the one in question, and in so doing it has treated all these deposits as deposits upon which it would pay or allow interest at the aforesaid rates, notwithstanding some of them were held and withdrawn as above stated. Under this method of allowing interest on deposits, it is impossible for the defendant to determine at the time it is required to make its sworn returns for the periods ending September 30th, and March 31st, semiannually, on what deposits it will pay or allow interest exceeding 2 per cent. per annum from the 1st day of January next preceding the 31st day of March, and from the 1st day of July next preceding the 30th day of September.

A few obvious considerations present themselves at the threshold of our inquiry. The suit is upon the bank's agreement to pay the taxes of its depositors, and not for the collection of a tax as such. The claim is not contested by the persons whose property is chargeable with the amount to be paid, but by the bank which has assumed the payment under statutory authorization. Those upon whom the tax was imposed have been omitted from the tax list because of this undertaking of their depositary. The substitution of the bank for the depositor as the one responsible for the payment of the tax was effected by its own act.

The arguments of counsel are based in part upon certain undisputed propositions. The taxing power of the state extends to all persons and property within its jurisdiction not protected therefrom by federal supremacy. Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491, 25 L. Ed. 558; Catlin v. Hull, 21 Vt. 152. National banks are instrumentalities of the federal government, and as such are necessarily under the paramount authority of the United States. Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank, 161 U. S. 275, 16 Sup. Ct. 502, 40 L. Ed. 700; Hawley v. Hurd, 72 Vt. 122, 47 Atl. 401, 52 L. R. A. 195, 82 Am. St. Rep. 922. There can be no state taxation of a national bank without the consent of Congress....

To continue reading

Request your trial
75 cases
  • Clark v. City of Burlington
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • November 19, 1928
    ...the state extends to all persons and property within its jurisdiction not protected therefrom by federal supremacy State v Clement National Bank, 84 Vt. 167, 179, 78 A. 944, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 22; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U. S. 37, 40 S. Ct. 221, 64 L. Ed. 445, 456. Second, that every presumpti......
  • State v. Auclair
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • January 3, 1939
    ...574, 51 S.Ct. 278, 281, 75 L.Ed. 551; Central Vt. Ry. Co. v. Campbell, 108 Vt. 510, 523, 192 A. 1917, 11 A.L. R. 175; State v. Clement Nat. Bank, 84 Vt. 167, 199, 78 A. 944, Ann.Cas.1912D, 22. Our investigation must proceed with these principles clearly in The claim that the act is in contr......
  • Julian R. Clark v. City of Burlington
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • November 19, 1928
    ...... .           Taxation---Extent. of Taxing Power of State---Presumption as to. Constitutionality---Rule as to Construction of ... State v. Clement National Bank , 84 Vt. 167,. 179, 78 A. 944, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 22; ...259, 265, 62 A. 724, 6 Ann. Cas. 578;. State v. Clement Nat. Bank , 84 Vt. 167,. 191, 78 A. 944, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 22. The limitation ......
  • State v. Clement National Bank
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • January 16, 1911
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT