Wood v. Deuser

• Decision Date: 08 September 1942
• Docket Number: 37994
• Citation: 164 S.W.2d 303,349 Mo. 1187
• Parties: Josephine G. Wood v. Phil Deuser, Successor Assessor to Martin L. Neaf of St. Louis County, and Forrest Smith, State Auditor, Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

164 S.W.2d 303

349 Mo. 1187

Josephine G. Wood v. Phil Deuser, Successor Assessor to Martin L. Neaf of St. Louis County, and Forrest Smith, State Auditor, Appellants

No. 37994

Supreme Court of Missouri

September 8, 1942

Appeal from Circuit Court of St. Louis County; Hon. Peter T Barrett, Judge.

Affirmed.

Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, and Russell C Stone, Assistant Attorney General, for appellants.

Respondent is not a stockholder of a corporation which paid a tax on its net earnings to the State of Missouri, and therefore, under the provisions of Section 11350 of R. S. 1939, is not entitled to a credit against tax. Sec. 11350, R. S. 1939; Artophone Corp. v. Coale, 133 S.W.2d 343; In re Kansas City Star Co., 346 Mo. 658, 142 S.W.2d 1029; Union Electric Co. v. Coale, 146 S.W.2d 631; State ex rel. St. Louis Young Men's Christian Assn v. Gehner, 11 S.W.2d 30; Sec. 11343, R. S. 1939; Irvine v. Spaeth, 299 N.W. 204, 12 U.S.C. A. 548.

Henry C. Lowenhaupt, Abraham Lowenhaupt and William H. Charles for respondent; Lowenhaupt, Waite & Stolar and Chasnoff, Willson & Cunningham of counsel.

(1) Respondent is entitled to the credit under the clear language of the statute. R. S. 1939, secs. 11345, 11347; Union Electric Co. v. Coale, 347 Mo. 175, 146 S.W.2d 631; R. S. 1939, sec. 11344; R. S. 1939, sec. 11343, Third; R. S. 1939, sec. 11343, Second; Eisner v. Macomber (1919), 252 U.S. 189; Hoeper v. Tax Commission of Wisconsin (1931), 284 U.S. 206. (2) Policy of the statute. First: Holding companies and trusts are not entities. R. S. 1939, secs. 11345, 11347; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189; Higgins v. Smith, 308 U.S. 473; Petition of Union Electric Co., 349 Mo. 73, 161 S.W.2d 968. Second: The statute avoids taxation of the same income twice. State v. Hallenberg-Wagner Motor Co., 341 Mo. 771, 108 S.W.2d 398; Automobile Gasoline Co. v. St. Louis, 326 Mo. 435, 32 S.W.2d 281; Federal Revenue Act of 1916, 39 Stat. 756, secs. 1 (a), 1 (b), 5 (b), and 10; R. S. 1939, sec. 11343; R. S. 1939, Arts. 20, 21, Chap. 74; R. S. 1939, sec. 10986. (3) The consistent administrative practice shows the meaning of the law. Constitution of Missouri, Art. IV, Sec. 41; Fawcus Machine Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 375; United States v. Dakota-Montana Oil Co., 288 U.S. 459; Helvering v. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 306 U.S. 110; Williams v. Williams, 325 Mo. 963, 30 S.W.2d 69; Automobile Gasoline Co. v. St. Louis, 326 Mo. 435, 32 S.W.2d 281; State v. Fendorf, 317 Mo. 579, 296 S.W. 787; State v. Maplewood, 231 Mo.App. 739, 99 S.W.2d 138; State v. Baker, 316 Mo. 853, 293 S.W. 399; Sanford's Estate v. Commr. of Internal Revenue, 308 U.S. 39, and Annotation thereto, 84 L.Ed. 28; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189. (4) The authorities. Corporation of America v. Johnson, 7 Cal. (2d) 295, 60 P.2d 417; Irvine v. Spaeth, 299 N.W. 204; Artophone Corp. v. Coale, 345 Mo. 344, 133 S.W.2d 343; R. S. 1939, sec. 11350; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189; Irvin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161; Blair v. Commissioner, 300 U.S. 5; Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112; Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111; Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122; Petition of Union Electric Co., 349 Mo. 73, 161 S.W.2d 968; Union Electric Co. v. Coale, 347 Mo. 175, 146 S.W.2d 631; In re Kansas City Star Co., 346 Mo. 658, 142 S.W.2d 1029; State v. Gehner, 320 Mo. 1172, 11 S.W.2d 30; R. S. 1939, sec. 11345.

Bohling, C. Westhues and Barrett, CC., concur.

OPINION

BOHLING

Phil Deuser, Assessor of St. Louis County, and Forrest Smith, State Auditor, perfect this appeal from a judgment abating an additional assessment of $ 315.54 income tax for the year 1935 against Josephine G. Wood, plaintiff nisi. The issue in substance is: May plaintiff legally claim a tax credit for the year 1935 on dividends of a Missouri corporation (which paid its Missouri income tax on the earnings involved) paid to a foreign corporation whose only activity was the holding of the stock of the Missouri corporation, and which dividends in turn are payable to a trust estate holding the legal title to stock of said foreign corporation for the use and benefit of plaintiff, a Missouri resident?

The A P. Green Fire Brick Company is a Missouri corporation (hereinafter designated the Missouri corporation). The Jopergreen Corporation (hereinafter designated the Delaware Corporation) is a foreign corporation, organized under the laws of the state of Delaware, holding the stock of said Missouri corporation. Plaintiff was one of several beneficiaries in like trust indentures created by A. P. Green and Josephine B. Green, husband and wife, said trust estates including among their assets shares of stock of said Delaware corporation. The Missouri corporation paid a Missouri income tax on 54.58 per centum of its net income for the year 1934, the year preceding the questioned return of plaintiff. Plaintiff's 1935 income tax return, in so far as material, showed a "total gross income" of "$ 29,328.85," including the item: "(3) Dividends on stock of corporations etc., $ 28,905.72." A "net income" of $ 26,273.29" was shown after allowable deductions from income. Under "Computation of Tax" a "net tax after special credit" of "$ 915.93" was shown. Then followed the item in dispute: "Less: Tax credit on dividends (2%) 54.58% of $ 28,905.72 -- $ 315.54;" resulting in a net tax of $ 600.39. The $ 28,905.72 item represents plaintiff's interest under said trust estates in dividends paid by the Missouri corporation to the Delaware corporation. Plaintiff's claim has its foundation in Sec. 11350, R. S. 1939, which, in part, provides:

"For the purpose of this article the tax on income included in the return of any stockholder of any corporation, . . . received or earned during the taxable period, shall be credited with the amount obtained by multiplying the rate of the Missouri state tax on corporate income by the amount or portion of such dividends, or net earnings of any corporation . . . upon which such corporation . . . paid income tax to the state of Missouri for its last preceding taxable period . . ."

Under said Section 11350 plaintiff would have been entitled to the credit here claimed had she received the $ 28,905.72 as a stockholder of the Missouri corporation. However plaintiff's interest in said $ 28,905.72 is under and by virtue of her beneficiary interest in the aforesaid trust indentures. Defendants argue that plaintiff is not entitled to the claimed credit because: First, plaintiff is not a stockholder of a corporation; i. e., the Missouri corporation or the Delaware corporation. Second, that the corporation whose dividends are involved, the Delaware corporation, paid no income tax on its net earnings to the State of Missouri for its last preceding taxable period. It was established of record that the practice for a number of years of those charged with the administration of the law had been to allow known beneficiaries of ascertained interests in trust estates to credit, under Section 11350 in their income tax returns, the tax paid by a corporation upon its earnings in those instances wherein its corporate dividends were payable to the trust estate by reason of its holding the legal title to stock in the corporation for the use and benefit of the beneficiary. This interpretation of the law was not contradicted of record, is not disputed here, and accords, we think, with Section 11347, R. S. 1939; which, so far as material, provides: "Income received by estates of deceased persons . . . and also such income of estates or any kind of property held in trust . . . shall be likewise taxed, the tax in each instance, except when the income is returned for the purpose of tax by the beneficiary, to be assessed to the . . . trustee . . .: Provided, that where the income is to be distributed annually or regularly between existing . . . beneficiaries, the rate of tax and method of computing the same shall be based in each case upon the amount of the individual share to be distributed." This contemplates that the interest of known beneficiaries in their ascertained income of trust estates may be reported in the income tax returns of said beneficiaries and taxed as the income of said beneficiaries. The result is to ignore the entity of the trust estate and treat its income as the income of its beneficiaries. Plaintiff would have been entitled to the claimed credit had the trust estates held the stock of the Missouri corporation entitling them to the direct payment of said $ 28,905.72.

What then is the effect of the existence and functioning of the Delaware corporation upon the situation? The parties stipulated that the Delaware corporation (the Jopergreen Corporation) "owned and held all of the stock of the A. P. Green Fire Brick Company" (the Missouri corporation), and "owned no asset other than said stock of the A. P. Green Fire Brick Company, and its only activity was holding such stock."

Section 11343, R. S. 1939, is the tax levying section. It provides: "There is hereby levied a per centum tax on net income in each year as follows: . . .

"Second . . . a tax shall be levied upon . . . and paid by every corporation . . . not organized, authorized or existing under the laws of this state, not now or hereafter exempted and not subject to tax under the next subdivisions of this section at the rate of two per cent (2%) of net income . . . received from all sources within this state, during the preceding year; . . . and provided further, that the rate of two per cent (2%) of net income in this subdivision levied . . . is hereby declared and provided as the rate or per cent of net income levied and assessed by, and as applicable to, subdivisions...