Transamerica Financial Corp. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue, s. 126

Citation201 N.W.2d 552,56 Wis.2d 57
Decision Date31 October 1972
Docket NumberNos. 126,127,s. 126
PartiesTRANSAMERICA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Respondent, v. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant. TRANSAMERICA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Respondent, v. James R. MORGAN, Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Appellant.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Robert W. Warren, Atty. Gen., E. Weston Wood, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, for appellant.

John M. Koeppl, Stafford, Rosenbaum, Rieser & Hansen, Madison, for respondent; Robert Horowitz, Madison, of counsel.

HANLEY, Justice.

Three issues are presented on this appeal:

(1) Is the phrase 'total interest and dividends received' as set forth in sec. 71.07(2), Stats., to be read literally as meaning all interest and dividends received, whether or not apportionable, or is the phrase to be read as including only interest and dividends received which are nonapportionable;

(2) Did the circuit court exceed its jurisdiction by directing the department to promulgate an apportionment rule applicable to finance companies; and

(3) Does the intepretation of sec. 71.07(2), Stats., averred for by the department, violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

In a case where the department and a taxpayer cannot agree on the proper interpretation to be accorded a particular statutory section, there are certain fundamental rules of construction which the court may apply.

First, unless a statute is unclear or ambiguous, legislative intent must be found "by giving the language its ordinary and accepted meaning." 1 Similarly, when the legislature does impose a tax, it must do so in clear and express language, with all ambiguity and doubt in the particular legislation being resolved against the one who seeks to impose the tax. 2

Although the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the taxpayer in cases where the language imposing the tax is ambiguous, there is no duty upon the court ". . . to search for doubt in an endeavor to defeat an obvious legislative intention." 3

The effect of sec. 71.07, Stats., 4 is to divide the income of a taxpayer operating both within and without this state into 'apportionable income' and 'nonapportionable income.' 'Apportionable income' is that income which for income tax purposes must be allocated to two or more states in which the taxpayer's business is carried on. Correspondingly, 'nonapportionable income' is that income which follows the situs of the property or the residence of the taxpayer and, as a result, is not allocated among two or more states.

Sec. 71.07(1), Stats., provides that interest from intangibles follows the residence of the recipient and therefore such income is nonapportionable. However, sub. (2), Stats., further provides that if the business is conducted within and without Wisconsin, and if the business is unitary, then the business income is apportionable. Here the taxpayer concedes that its interest income is apportionable.

For the court's purposes, the starting point in sec. 71.07(2), Stats., is the provision which states:

'. . . There shall first be deducted from the total net income of the taxpayer such part thereof (less related expenses, if any) as follows the situs of the property or the residence of the recipient; . . .' (Emphasis supplied.)

Since income which follows the 'situs of the property or the residence of the recipient' is nonapportionable income, the statute is in effect saying, 'Deduct nonapportionable income from total net income.'

However, sub. (2) goes on to limit the amount of nonapportionable income that can be deducted when it states:

'. . . provided, that in the case of income which follows the residence of the recipient, the amount of interest and dividends deductible under this provision shall be limited to the total interest and dividends received which are in excess of the total interest (or related expenses, if any) paid and allowable as a deduction under section 71.04 during the income year. . . .' (Emphasis supplied.)

The reference in the immediately preceding portion of the statute to 'the amount of interest and dividends deductible under this provision' refers to nonapportionable interest and dividend income because no apportionable income of any type is ever deductible under the provision. The entire provision relates only to income which follows the situs to the property or the residence of the taxpayer.

The statute next limits the amount of what must be nonapportionable interest and dividends which can be deducted to 'the total interest and dividends received which are in excess of the total interest . . . paid.' (Emphasis supplied.)

The department argues that the phrase should be interpreted as meaning only 'the total (nonapportionable) interest and dividends received which are in excess of the total interest . . . paid.' We do not agree. The use of the word 'total' in 'total interest and dividends received' is clear and unambiguous and does not require construction. 'Total' means all interest and dividends received whether or not apportionable. In the case of Armour & Co. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Taxation (1948), 252 Wis. 468, 32 N.W.2d 324, this court held 'total' as used in the phrase 'in excess of total interest . . . paid' means just what it says,--all, not part.

The department further argues that the assessments made here are in accord with the interpretation of the statute for many years, since 1932, and is entitled to great weight in construing the statute. We think administrative construction is not to be given force where it is inconsistent with an unambiguous statutory provision. Dept. of Taxation v. Aluminum Goods Mfg. Co. (1957), 275 Wis. 389, 82 N.W.2d 349, 84 N.W.2d 67.

Adoption of the department's interpretation would result in all of the taxpayer's dividend income, even though it has no relation to Wisconsin, being taxed.

Aside from the constitutional problems such interpretation would raise, the taxing of dividends which, as here, are derived from wholly-owned subsidiaries having no relation to Wisconsin whatsoever, would 'fly in the face' of that part of sec. 71.07(2), Stats., which provides:

'Persons engaged in business within and without the state shall be taxed only on such income as is derived from business transacted and property located within the state. . . .' (Emphasis supplied.)

The fact that the legislature never recognized the obvious infirmities of the statute when applied to a financial corporation such as the taxpayer is borne out by its recent passage of sec. 373 of ch. 125, Laws of 1971, whereby sec. 71.07(2), Stats., was repealed and recreated to expressly exempt financial organizations from its operation. Newly-created sec. 71.07(2)(e) states:

'The net business income of financial organizations; and public utilities requiring apportionment shall be apportioned pursuant to rules of the department of revenue,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Friends of the Earth v. Public Service Commission
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 1 Junio 1977
    ...The trial court could not order the PSC to do that which the statute clearly makes optional. Transamerica Finan. Corp. v. Dept. of Revenue, 56 Wis.2d 57, 69, 201 N.W.2d 552 (1972). The trial court should have treated the PSC's written expression of willingness to modify the order as a modif......
  • Walker's Estate, Matter of
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 6 Enero 1977
    ...International v. Board of Adjustment, 60 Wis.2d 182, 199, 208 N.W.2d 121, 130 (1973).4 See: Transamerica Financial Corp. v. Dept. of Revenue, 56 Wis.2d 57, 64, 201 N.W.2d 552 (1972); National Amusement Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, supra, 41 Wis.2d at 266, 163 N.W.2d at 627.5 Weiss v. Holman, 58......
  • Estate of Laev, Matter of
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • 26 Septiembre 1983
    ...application of a specific taxing statute, there are certain applicable rules of construction. Transamerica Financial Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 56 Wis.2d 57, 64, 201 N.W.2d 552, 555 (1972). Unless a statute is unclear and ambiguous, legislative intent must be found by giving the langua......
  • Wuorinen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 31 Octubre 1972
    ... ... State of Wisconsin, Intervening Defendant-Respondent ... Shirley M ... ...
  • 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