Skip links

A Tax Which Is Neither Personal Nor Property Is an Excise Tax

Consequently, parts of the property leased to individuals and parts of the hospital leased to individuals are not exempt from these taxes. On the other hand, the parts of the land occupied by the hospital and the parts of the hospital that are used for its patients, whether they pay or not, are exempt from property tax. A state may tax annually the total net income of residents from any source received, 122 FootnoteLawrence v. State Tax Comm`n, 286 U.S. 276 (1932). since jurisdiction is based on residency rights and privileges. A State may also tax that part of a non-resident`s net income derived from property it owns within its borders, as well as from any business, trade or profession it carries on within its borders.123 FootnoteShaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37 (1920); Travis vs. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 252 U.S. 60 (1920).

This power of the state is based on the domination of the state over the property it owns or the activity from which the revenues originate, and on the obligation to contribute to the support of a government that ensures the collection of these revenues. Accordingly, a State may tax residents on income from rents of land outside the State; interest on bonds physically located outside the State and secured by a mortgage on land outside the State;124 footnoteNew York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, 300 U.S. 308 (1937). and by a trust established and administered in another state and not directly taxable to the trustee.125 FootnoteMaguire v. Trefy, 253 U.S. 12 (1920). Moreover, the fact that another State has lawfully taxed identical income in the hands of trustees operating in that State does not necessarily destroy the right of a State of residence to tax the collection of income from a resident beneficiary.126 FootnoteGuaranty Trust Co. v. Virginia, 305 U.S. 19, 23 (1938).

Even if a non-resident does not operate in a State, the State may tax the profits made by the non-resident on the sale of a right to join a stock exchange within its borders. New York ex rel. Whitney vs. Graves, 299 U.S. 366 (1937). 1. Investigation Phase – This is legislation. That`s the role of Congress – to determine and enact a tax bill. Congress determines the tax rate and type of tax, as well as the possibility or method of collecting the tax. Once you have a complete law, it is the executive branch that implements that tax law.

Theoretically, public money cannot be spent for non-public purposes. Some of the early cases applied this principle by invalidating taxes that were considered levied to raise funds for purely private rather than public purposes.36 FootnoteLoan Association v. Topeka, 87 USA (20 walls.) 655 (1875) (Repeal of the tax levied by the city to provide a large subsidy to a bridge builder, to get him to locate his factory in the city). See also City of Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487 (1882) (special purpose private bonds not approved by the state Constitution). However, modern notions of public utility have expanded to such an extent that the restriction has little practical significance.37 Footnote Taxes levied for each of the following purposes have been taken into account for public use: an urban coal and fuel yard, Jones v. City of Portland, 245 U.S. 217 (1917), a state bank, warehouse, elevator, grain mill system, House Building Projects, Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 300 U.S. 495 (1937), a society for the prevention of animal cruelty (dog driving license tax), Nicchia v. New York, 254 U.S.

228 (1920), a railroad tunnel, Milheim v. Moffat Tunnel Dist., 262 U.S. 710 (1923), books for schoolchildren attending private and public schools, Cochran v. Louisiana Vol. of Educ., 281 U.S. 370 (1930), and Unemployment Relief, Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495, 515 (1937). Whether a use is public or private, although ultimately a judicial matter, “is a practical matter for the Department of the Legislative Assembly, and it would require a clear case of deviation from any public objective that could reasonably be designed to warrant court intervention.” 38 Footnote In applying the due process clause in the Fifth Amendment, the Court clarified that discretion over what constitutes a public objective “rests with Congress, unless the choice is manifestly erroneous, in the display of arbitrary power and not in the exercise of judgment.” Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 640 (1937); United States vs.

Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 67 (1936). The fact that payments can be made to individuals is no longer relevant today. Carmichael, 301 U.S. at 518. See Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1 (1976) (Maintenance tax imposed on mining companies to compensate workers with black lung disabilities, including those with illnesses before the tax was introduced, to apportion the cost of employees` liabilities).

(II) If the assessment of the assessment of a county as expressed in its summary of the assessment is more than five per cent lower than the assessment of that county as determined by the study, the State Compensation Committee shall, in the following year, at the expense of the county, arrange for a revaluation of one or more classes of taxable assets; whose study shows that they do not comply with the provisions of this Constitution or the laws relating to property tax. The State Compensation Committee shall order a revaluation of one or more classes of taxable real property in the following year at the expense of the county, which, according to the study, has not been valued in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution or the property tax by-laws, although the overall assessment of the county, as reflected in the summary of the county assessment, no more than five percent below that of the county was an aggregate score for the assessment, as determined by the study. The reassessment is used to assess the county for assessment against that re-evaluated class(s) for the year in which the reassessment was conducted. An articulation of the current approach can be found in South Carolina v. Baker.569 The rules are “essentially the same” for federal immunity from state tax and for state immunity from federal tax, except that certain state activities may be subject to direct federal tax, while states may “never” tax the United States directly. Any government may tax private parties who do business with the other government, “even if the financial burden falls on [the other government], as long as the tax does not discriminate against [the other government] or those with whom it deals.” 570 Thus, `the question arises as to whether a non-discriminatory federal tax could nevertheless undermine the State`s tax exemption, unless the federal government even attempts to collect the tax directly from a State`. 571 On the other hand, the mere ownership of assets by a foreign company in a State without residence was not sufficient to base a tax of that State on the inheritance of shares of that company held by a deceased non-resident.103 Footnote Rhode Island Trust Co.