United States v. Nipissing Mines Co.
| Decision Date | 18 June 1913 |
| Docket Number | 191. |
| Citation | 206 F. 431 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. NIPISSING MINES CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Henry A. Wise, U.S. Atty., and A. S. Pratt and Frank M. Roosa Asst. U.S. Attys., of New York City.
Green Hurd & Stowell, of New York City, for defendant in error.
'That every corporation, joint stock company or association organized for profit and having a capital stock represented by shares, and every insurance company, * * * shall be subject to pay annually a special excise tax with respect to the carrying on or doing business by such corporation, joint stock company or association. * * * ' Section 38.
The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Maine and is the owner of all the shares of the capital stock of Nipissing Mining Company, Limited, a corporation under the laws of Canada. The defendant is called in the record the holding company and the Canadian corporation is called the operating company. The stock of the operating company constitutes 'practically the sole assets of the holding company (the defendant) its only other assets being a small amount in bank, office furniture and trifling matters. ' The charter of the defendant is not printed in the record but there is nothing to show that it has ever done any other business than to receive dividends from the operating company and to distribute them as dividends among its own stockholders.
While the affairs of the defendant and the operating company are closely connected and they have officers in common there is nothing in the record to warrant the ignoring of the distinct corporate existence of each corporation or the treating of them as doing any other business than that which they are actually shown to do.
Judgment dismissing the action affirmed, and judgment for defendant on the counter claim reversed.
Before COXE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
NOYES Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The primary question in this case is whether the defendant corporation is 'carrying on or doing business' within the meaning of the Corporation Tax Law. If it is not, it is not subject to the tax. In that case it is quite immaterial how its income should be determined. The judgment dismissing the complaint would be correct although the ground would be different.
In our opinion the very recent decision of the Supreme Court in McCoach v. Minehill, etc., R. Co., 228 U.S. 295, 33 Sup.Ct. 419, 57 L.Ed. . . . (decided April 7, 1913), is decisive of this case. In that case it was held that a railroad company which had leased its road to another corporation was not 'doing business' as a railroad company notwithstanding that it received and distributed the rentals from its lease, maintained its organization and held itself ready to exercise its powers and franchise and to resume possession when entitled thereto. Certainly the Minehill Company did as much corporate business in respect of its railroad interests as the defendant did in respect of its stockholding interests. But if there were nothing more to the Minehill Case than that which has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Forma
...an independent suit, see United States v. Wissahickon Tool Works, Inc., 200 F.2d 936, 939 (2d Cir.1952); United States v. Nipissing Mines Co., 206 F. 431, 434 (2d Cir.1913), cert. dismissed, 234 U.S. 765, 34 S.Ct. 673, 58 L.Ed. 1582 (1914); United States v. Pottorf, 854 F.Supp. 748, 752 (D.......
-
United States v. Frank
...Circuit has been that the district court has no jurisdiction to entertain a counterclaim under the Tucker Act. United States v. Nipissing Mines Co., 206 F. 431 (2d Cir.1913), cert. dismissed, 234 U.S. 765, 34 S.Ct. 673, 58 L.Ed. 1582 (1914); United States v. Anasae International Corp., 197 ......
-
United States v. Lacy
...absence of specific statutory authority. United States v. Shaw, 1940, 309 U.S. 495, 60 S.Ct. 659, 84 L.Ed. 888; United States v. Nipissing Mines Co., 2 Cir., 1913, 206 F. 431, certiorari denied, 1914, 234 U.S. 765, 34 S.Ct. 673, 58 L.Ed. 1582; United States v. Davidson, 5 Cir., 1943, 139 F.......
-
United States v. Shaw (In re McLouth's Estate)
...of controlling statutory provisions which restricted the jurisdiction of the forum in which suit was brought. See United States v. Nipissing Mines Co., 2 Cir., 206 F. 431. We forego specifically pointing out the quite obvious inapplicability of numerous federal decisions cited by appellant ......