Majority
Headnote
Motion for reargument. (See 179 N. Y. 227 ).There is nothing in the opinion in this case to justify the assumption in the motion for reargument that
It may be true that the legislature has the power to measure the tax in either way, but if it intended that the burden should rest on past contracts or transactions as well as future contracts or transactions, that intention should be expressed in words so clear as to leave no room for construction. In this case we have construed the words of the statute as applicable only to future business arising from future contracts. That is all we decided. Every tax by whatever name it is called must rest upon and become a burden on some kind of property. When the burden rests upon the income or receipts of corporate busir.esss as in this case, in the absence of clear language to the contrary, the statute should be construed as applying to future business and not to past transactions. If there is any ambiguity in the statute it should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer and not in favor of the state.
The motion should be denied, with $10 costs.
Gray, Bartlett, Haight, Vann and Webster, JJ., concur.
Motion denied.