Swarts v. Hammer
| Decision Date | 02 February 1903 |
| Docket Number | 1,806. |
| Citation | 120 F. 256 |
| Parties | SWARTS v. HAMMER. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Lee Sale (Moses N. Sale, on the brief), for appellant.
Herbert R. Marlatt, George S. Johnson, Charles A. Houts, and Harry B Hawes, for appellee.
Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.
Solomon L. Swarts, as trustee in bankruptcy of the Siegel-Hillman Dry Goods Company, had in his hands as such trustee the sum of $68,320 belonging to the bankrupt estate, which sum was deposited to the credit of the trustee in the designated depository of the court. This money was so held by the trustee at the time appointed by the law of the state for the assessment of moneys and other personal property, and was duly assessed to the trustee. The trustee refused to pay the tax on this money in his hands, claiming that the bankrupt law exempted it from taxation. The referee decided it was liable to taxation, and this decision was affirmed by the district court, and the trustee appealed to this court.
The money was clearly liable to be taxed under the state law, and the tax is valid and collectible, unless the bankrupt act exempts it from taxation. Exemption from taxation is never presumed. The legislative intent to exempt property from taxation must be clearly and explicitly expressed. Whether Congress could rightfully exempt from state taxation the property of a bankrupt in the hands of a trustee in bankruptcy, and otherwise subject to taxation, we need not inquire. It has not attempted to do so, and it is highly probably it never will. The power of taxation, as well as the power to exempt from taxation, is a legislative, and not a judicial, function; and a bankrupt court, no more than any other court, can exempt from taxation property in the hands of one of its officers which is liable to taxation under the state law. It has never been questioned but what property in the custody and control of receivers and trustees of the federal courts was subject to taxation under the state law the same as other like property. Judson on Taxation, section 407, and cases cited. And this applies to trustees in bankruptcy as well as receivers and trustees in other cases and proceedings in the federal courts. It is a grave mistake to suppose that property in the possession and custody of an officer of the federal court by that single fact enjoys immunity from taxation. So far from exempting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Mason Tire & Rubber Co.
...one of whether the state of Ohio has exempted such money from taxation, since exemption from taxation is not presumed. Swarts v. Hammer (C. C. A.) 120 F. 256. Article 12, § 2, of the Ohio Constitution, provides that "laws shall be passed, taxing by a uniform rule, all moneys, credits, inves......
-
United States v. Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co.
... ... 778, 38 L.R.A. 97; McFarland v ... Hurley (C.C.A.) 286 F. 365; Liberty Central Trust ... Co. v. Gilliland Oil Co. (D.C.) 279 F. 432; Swarts ... v. Hammer, 194 U.S. 441, 24 Sup.Ct. 695, 48 L.Ed. 1060; ... Bright v. Arkansas, 249 F. 950, 162 C.C.A. 148; ... Wiswall v. Kunz, 173 Ill. 110, ... ...
-
In Re Hubs Repair Shop, Inc.
...held by the estate. The lower court had found that the tax was assessed by the state after the bankruptcy had commenced. Swarts v. Hammer, 120 F. 256 (8th Cir.1903). The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the estate was required to collect and remit the tax. Swarts, 194 U.S. at 444, 24 S.......
-
In re Wells, 7150
...power of taxation, and therefore taxes accruing on the property in the hands of the bankruptcy trustee must be paid by him. Swarts v. Hammer (C. C. A.) 120 F. 256; Id., 194 U. S. 441, 24 S. Ct. 695, 48 L. Ed. 1060. And the law has been so applied by the Circuit Court of Appeals for this Fou......