Gambar halaman

The Western Union Telegraph Company is one of the instruments employed by the United States government for carrying into effect its sovereign powers, and a tax upon its franchise is void. (San Francisco v. Western Union Tel. Co., 96 Cal. 140, 31 Pac. 10.)

Whether or not a federal franchise has been assessed is a question of fact, and conversations with members of the board of equalization on the subject are not almissible. (People v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 105 Cal. 576, 38 Pac. 905.)

Franchises conferred by Congress cannot, without its permission, be taxed by the states. (California v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 127 U. S. 1, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073.)

National banks are agencies of the federal government, and are not subject to the taxing power of the state. (McHenry v. Downer, 116 Cal. 20, 47 Pac. 779.)

Taxation of property of a national bank, except as permitted by the United States Revised Statutes, is void. (First Nat. Bank v. San Francisco, 129 Cal. 96, 61 Pac. 778; Miller v. Heilbron, 58 Cal. 133.)

The provision of section 3609, Political Code, is valid and enforceable. (Nevada Nat. Bank v. Dodge, 119 Fel. 57.)

Section 5219, United States Revised Statutes, does not require the state to conform its system of taxation with respect to local banking corporations to that applied to national bank shares, and it is not violated because a state taxes the property, instead of shares of domestic corporations. (Nevada Nat. Bank v. Dodge, 119 Fed. 57.)

Stockholders in a national bank have the right to the same deductions from the assessed value of their shares as is allowed to local banks and individual owners of other moneyed capital. (Nevada Nat. Bank v. Dodge, 119 Fed. 57.)

Stockholders of a national bank are required to take notice of the law of the state for the assessment and taxation of their shares. (Nevala Nat. Bank v. Dodge, 119 Fed. 57.)

Exemptions. The legislature has no power to exempt any property from taxation. (Mackay v. San Francisco, 113 Cal. 392, 45 Pac. 696; Minturn v. Hayes, 2 Cal. 590, 56 Am. Dec. 366; People v. McCreery, 34 Cal. 432; People v. Black Diamond etc. Min. Co., 37 Cal. 54; Crosby v. Lyon, 37 Cal. 242; People v. Eddy, 43 Cal. 331, 13 Am. Rep. 143; People v. Latham, 52 Cal. 598.)

In the absence of congressional legislation the property and franchises of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company and of the Central Pacific Railroad Company not exempt from state taxation. (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Co., 18 Fed. 385. Affirmed: 118 U. S. 394, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1132.)

Double Taxation. The Constitution forbids the double taxation of property. (Burke v. Badlam, 57 Cal. 594; Germania Trust Co. v.


San Francisco, 128 Cal. 598, 61 Pac, 178; Estate of Fair, 128 Cal. 607, 61 Pac. 184.)

Double taxation does not necessarily consist in assessing the same property twice to the same person, but may consist in requiring a double contribution to the same tax on account of the same property, though the assessments are to different persons. (Germania Trust Co. v. San Francisco, 128 Cal. 589, 61 Pac. 178; Estate of Fair, 128 Cal. 607, 61 Pac. 184.)

The inhibition of double taxation only applies to such taxation by the same government. (San Francisco v. Fry, 63 Cal. 470.)

Because the same subject matter has been twice taxed, it by no means follows that both taxes are void, but to entitle a party to relief in the courts, it must appear that the tax has been once paid or tendered. (Savings etc. Soc. v. Austin, 46 Cal. 415.)

It would be assessing the same property twice to assess money on deposit in a savings bank to the bank and also to the depositor. (Burke v. Badlam, 57 Cal. 594.)

It would be assessing the same property twice to assess to a cor poration all of its corporate property, and also to assess to each of the stockholders the shares held by them. (Burke v. Bailam, 57 Cal. 594.)

It is not double taxation to tax the roadbed and roadway of a rail. roal, as they are quite different. (San Francisco etc. R. R. Co. v. State Board, 60 Cal. 12.)

Where all the property of a corporation has been assessed and it owns none of its capital stock, an assessment of " capital" or "capital stock" iš void. (San Francisco v. Spring Valley W. W., 63 Cal. 524.)

An attempt to tax a seat in a stock exchange board, in addition to the taxes levied upon all the property of the board, is void as an attempt at double taxation. (San Francisco V. Anderson, 103 Cal. 69, 42 Am. St. Rep. 98, 36 Pac. 1034.)

Since a mortgage is assessed as an interest in the land, to also assess the bonds which the mortgage secures is double taxation. (Germania Trust Co. v. San Francisco, 128 Cal. 589, 61 Pac. 178; Estate of Fair, 128 Cal. 607, 61 Pac. 184.)

The lender of money is not subject to double taxation by reason of the payment of taxes on money loaned by him, and on solvent debts due him over his own indebtedness. (People v. McCreery, 34 Cal. 432.)

The provisions of this section are not conditions upon the continued existence of railroad corporations. (Railroad Tax Cases, 13 Fed. 722.)

It is presumed that all property of a corporation has been assessed to the corporation, and an assessment of stock to a stockholder will be considered a double assessment and void. (City and County of San Francisco v. Mackey, 21 Fed. 539.)

The Constitution forbids double taxation. (City and County of San Francisco v. Mackey, 21 Fed. 539, 22 Fed. 602.)

To tax property to corporation and stock to stockholders is double taxation and void. (City and County of San Francisco v. Mackey, 22 Fed. 602.)

The tangible property of a California corporation situated and taxed in Nevada is not taxable in California, through the medium of its stock. (City and County of San Francisco v. Mackey, 22 Fed. 602.)


Sec. 11, Art. XIII. All buildings, and so much of the real property on which they are situated as may be required for the convenient use and occupation of said buildings, when the same are used solely and exclusively for religious worship, shall be free from taxation; provided, that no building so used which may be rented for religious purposes and rent received by the owner therefor, shall be exempt from taxation. [Amendment adopted November 6, 1900.]


Legislative History.

This section is new. The Constitution as adopted in 1879 made Do such exemption. It was endeavored, without success, in the constitutional convention to secure an exemption of church property cver five thousand dollars in value. (Constitutional Debates, p. 98.)

As yet this section has not been construed by the courts.


Mortgages on Church Property.-Mortgages on church property ara not exempt under the provisions of the above section. (Opinion of City Attorney of San Francisco, Franklin K. Lane, p. 438.)

The right of a mortgagor to a deduction of value of his mortgage is not affected by the fact that the mortgage is given to the regents of the state university, and is not taxable as being property of the state. (People v. Board of Supervisors, 77 Cal. 136, 19 Pac. 257.)


PROPERTY AFFECTED. Sec. 4, Art. XIII. A mortgage, deed of trust, contract, or other obligation by which a debt is secured, shall, for the purposes of assessment and taxation, be deemed and treated as an inter

Corporation Laws_5

est in the property affected thereby. Except as to railroad and other quasi public corporations, in case of debts so secured, the value of the property affected by such mortgage, deed of trust, contract, or obligation, less the value of such security, shall be assessed and taxed to the owner of the property, and the value of such security shall be assessed and taxed to the owner thereof, in the county, city, or district in which the property affected thereby is situate. The taxes so levied shall be a lien upon the property and security, and may be paid by either party to such security; if paid by the owner of the security, the tax so levied upon the property affected thereby shall become a part of the debt so secured; if the owner of the property shall pay the tax so levied on such security, it shall constitute a payment thereon, and to the extent of such payment a full discharge thereof; provided, that if any such security or indebtedness shall be paid by any such debtor or debtors, after assessment and before the tax levy, the amount of such levy may likewise be retained by such debtor or debtors, and shall be computed according to the tax levy for the preceding year.

Legislative History.

This section has no parallel in the Constitution of 1849.

The reason why no independent taxation of credits secured on the property of railroad corporations was provided for is thus explained in Germania Trust Co. v. San Francisco, 128 Cal. 596, 61 Pac. 178: "At the time the Constitution was framed and adopted it was supposed that the property of such corporations was commonly mortgaged to an amount equal to or greater than its value; the difficulty or impossibility of reaching their mortgage bonds when held, as is frequently the case, in the hands of numerous owners disbursed over the world, made it seem politic and convenient to fix them as an interest in the property by taxing the property without the deduction on account of the debt allowed to natural persons; the state could lose no revenue, nor would railroad property in any wise escape taxation- both of which contingencies were doubtless designed to be avoided; the plan also was not open to the imputation of an attempt at double taxation.”

Section Cited.

This section is cited as to railroad and quasi public corporations in the following cases: C. P. R. R. v. Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 58; Germania Trust Co. v. City and County of San Francisco, 128 Cal. 592, 61 Pac. 178; Estate of Fair, 128 Cal. 610, 61 Pac. 184.


Railroad Property.- The property of railroad and other quasi public corporations is subject to taxation, without deduction of any nortgage or other like lien thereon. (Central Pac. R. R. Co. v. Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 35.)

The provision of this section taxing property of quasi public cor. porations, without deduction of liens thereon, is not in conflict with the provision of the United States Constitution that no state shall "deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' since that provision does not apply to artificial persons. (Central Pac. R. R. Co. v. Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 35. To the contrary: Railroad Tax Cases, 13 Fed. 722.)

This section discriminates against railroad companies by imposing a greater burden on their property than is imposed upon natural persons. (Santa Clara Co. v. S. P. R. R. Co., 18 Fed. 385.)

This section violates the rule as to uniformity of taxation. (Railroad Tax Cases, 13 Fed. 722.)

Bonds of a railroad company secured by mortgages of its property within the state are not assessable to the holder of the bonds. (Germania etc. Co. v. San Francisco, 128 Cal. 589, 61 Pac. 178; Estate of Fair, 128 Cal. 607, 61 Pac. 184.)

Whether the loan secured by the stocks and bonds is or is not an interest in the “property affected thereby” for the purpose of taxation within the meaning of this section, and conceding that the stocks and bonds may be exempt from taxation, the debt securel thereby for money loaned is not exempt, but may be taxed to the lender. (Savings etc. Soc. v. San Francisco, 131 Cal. 356, 63 Pac. 665.)


Sec. 10, Art. XIII. All property, except as hereinafter in this section provided, shall be assessed in the county, city, city and county, town, township, or district in which it is situated, in the manner prescribed by law. The franchise, roadway, roadbed, rails and rolling-stock of all railroads operated in more than one county in this state shall be assessed by the state board of equalization, at their actual value, and the same shall be apportioned to the counties, cities and counties, cities, towns, townships, and districts in which such railroads are located, in proportion to the number of miles of railway laid in such counties, cities and counties, cities, towns, townships, and districts.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »