Majority
Headnote
1. Taxation (§ 365*)—Franchise Taxes—Cobpoeations—Basis of Assessment—Stock—Pab Value—Conflict of Statutes.The relator is a domestic corporation carrying on business in this state only. It paid no dividends, and its assets do not exceed its liabilities, exclusive of its capital stock. The Comptroller, by the determination under review, has stated a tax against it of three-fourths of one mill upon the par value of its capital stock.
Before the amendment in 1906 of section 183 of the tax law, the franchise tax against such a corporation was based upon the appraised value of its capital stock," and not upon the par value thereof. People ex rel. N. Y. & E. R. F. Co. v. Roberts, 168 N. Y. 14 , 60 N. E. 1043 . In. that case, decided in. 1901, the Court of Appeals determined that section 183, standing alone, was ambiguous, and perhaps justified the contention that the par value of the stock was the correct basis for the tax, but that section 190, providing for the appraisal in all cases where a dividend of 6 per cent, was not declared, made it clear that the tax of such corporations could only be based upon the appraised value.
Chapter 474, p. 1196, Laws 1906, amended section 183, and its language, after the amendment, indicates that the par value of the stock is to be the basis upon which the tax is to be computed. The amendment of section 190 at the same time permits an appraisal only where a dividend of 6 per cent, was not declared, and the assets exceeded the liabilities, including the capital stock, or the average price at which the stock sold during the year is equal to or greater than par, and required that the appraisal must not be less than par. This amendment, following the Roberts Case, was evidently intended to make the par value of the capital stock the minimum basis for taxation, and therefore no appraisal was provided for in cases where the stock was worth less than par.
It is urged that this amendment restored the rule established in the Roberts Case, and makes the actual value the basis of taxation in all cases where a dividend of 6 per cent, or more has not been declared. The law of 1907 provides three cases where it is necessary to have an actual appraisal of the value of the stock: (1) Where a dividend of 6 per cent, or more was not declared and the assets exceed the liabilities, including capital stock; (3) where a dividend of 6 per cent, or more was not declared, and the average price at which such stock sold during the year was equal or greater than its par value, in each of which cases the valuation cannot be less than (a) the par value of the stock, (b) the difference between the assets and liabilities exclusive of capital stock, or (c) the average price at which such stock was sold ' during the year; (3) corporations not taxable under any of the other subdivisions.
We therefore see that the appraisal mentioned by section 190 of the amended law is necessary in many cases, and it is very proper, in every,case where the dividend is not 6 per cent, or greater, that the Comptroller have before him, as a part of the report, all the facts which may bring the case within any paragraph of the section, so that he may better determine under which paragraph it properly falls. Sections 190 and 183 are not, therefore, antagonistic, but may be harmonized and read together. Section 190 does not destroy the plain provisions of section 183, where the par value of the stock is made the basis for computation. The relator falls clearly within the provisions of section 183, which make the par value of the stock the basis upon which the tax is to be computed.
The appellant contends that during part of the year 1906 its business was necessarily suspended, and that under People ex rel. Mutual Trust Co. v. Miller, 177 N. Y. 51 , 69 N. E. 1092 , a tax should not be imposed upon it for the entire year. The amendment of section 183 in 1906, imposing a franchise tax upon corporations, required that the tax be paid annually in advance. The Comptroller has erroneously stated that the tax under review was for the two years ending October 31, 1907. The Comptroller stated this tax January 31, 1907, as due and payable on January 15, 1907, for the year ending October 31, 1906, and on January 15, 1908, for the year ending October 31, 1907. As the tax is payable in advance, no tax was stated against the relator for the year 1906; but the statements under the law were
The determination of the Comptroller should be modified, so that it will appear that the tax is for the two years ending October 31,. 1908, and, as so modified, confirmed, with $50 costs to be paid by the relator. All concur.
Cases cited
- People ex rel. New York & East River Ferry Co. v. Roberts 168 N. Y. 14 at 60 p. 535
- People ex rel. Mutual Trust Co. v. Miller 177 N. Y. 51 at 69 p. 536