FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226  
227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   >>   >|  
e first State to attempt to employ the apportionment device in order to tax the gross receipts of companies engaged in interstate commerce was Maine, in connection with a so-called "franchise tax," which was levied on such proportion of the revenues of railroads operating in the State as their mileage there bore to their total mileage. In Maine _v._ Grand Trunk Railway Company,[672] a sharply divided Court upheld the tax on the basis of its designation, giving scant attention to its apportionment feature. Said Justice Field for the majority: "The privilege of exercising the franchises of a corporation within a State is generally one of value, and often of great value, and the subject of earnest contention. It is natural, therefore, that the corporation should be made to bear some proportion of the burdens of government. As the granting of the privilege rests entirely in the discretion of the State, whether the corporation be of domestic or foreign origin, it may be conferred upon such conditions, pecuniary or otherwise, as the State in its judgment may deem most conducive to its interests or policy."[673] Four Justices, speaking by Justice Bradley, protested forcefully that the decision directly contradicted a whole series of decisions holding that the States are without power to tax interstate commerce;[674] and seventeen years later another sharply divided Court endorsed this contention when it overturned a Texas gross receipts tax drawn on the lines of the earlier Maine statute.[675] The Maine tax, however, the later Court suggested, had been in the nature of a commutation tax in lieu of all taxes, which the Texas tax was not.[676] FRANCHISE TAXES Today the term, franchise tax, possesses no specific saving quality of its own. If the tax is merely a "just equivalent" of other taxes it is valid however calculated.[677] Conversely, when such taxes are in addition to other taxes then their fate will be determined by the same rules as would apply had the label been omitted.[678] More precisely, the rule governing this species of tax is ordinarily the apportionment concept, and if the basis of apportionment adopted by the taxing State is deemed by the Court to be a fair and reasonable one, the tax will be sustained; otherwise, not. Thus a franchise tax may be measured by such proportion of the company's net income as its capital invested in the taxing State and its business carried on there bear to its total capital
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226  
227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

apportionment

 

corporation

 
franchise
 

proportion

 
sharply
 

divided

 

privilege

 

Justice

 

contention

 

commerce


interstate

 
receipts
 

capital

 

mileage

 
taxing
 
saving
 
specific
 

FRANCHISE

 

possesses

 
earlier

endorsed
 

seventeen

 

overturned

 

nature

 
commutation
 
suggested
 

statute

 

adopted

 

deemed

 

concept


ordinarily
 

governing

 

species

 

reasonable

 

sustained

 

income

 

invested

 

business

 

carried

 
measured

company

 
precisely
 
calculated
 

Conversely

 

equivalent

 
addition
 

omitted

 
determined
 

quality

 
conditions