Blake v. National Banks

90 U.S. 307, 23 L. Ed. 119, 23 Wall. 307, 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1311
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 22, 1875
Docket553
StatusPublished
Cited by46 cases

This text of 90 U.S. 307 (Blake v. National Banks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Blake v. National Banks, 90 U.S. 307, 23 L. Ed. 119, 23 Wall. 307, 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1311 (1875).

Opinion

Mr. Justice HUNT

delivered the opinion of the court.

The language of the act of July 14th, 1870, is too manifest to admit of a doubt that Congress intended to extend for two years the tax upon the incomes of individuals. "Without further legislation the power to levy that tax expired with'the year 1870. A tax for the year 1869 had been levied in March, 1870, under the authority of the laws referred to. No further levy could be made. It is then provided by section six that there shall be levied for the years 1870 and 1871 a tax upon individual incomes.

By the statute of 1864 that portion of the income of an individual derived from dividends on stocks, interest on corporate bonds, and the like, was directed not to be included in his return of gains and profits, and no tax was assessed *317 to him directly for that portion of his income. Another section of the same statute provided that dividends of earnings, interest on corporate bonds, and the like should be taxed to the corporation directly and in its name. While these items were passed over in the individual account, they were rigidly and searchingly sought out and taxed in the name of the corporation. We here find the explanation of that portion of the seventh section of the act of 1870, which excepts from individual income as a subject of taxation “ that portion thereof from which, under authority of acts of Congress previous hereto, a tax of 5 per centum shall have been withheld.”

Intending and expecting that this source of taxation would continue to be reached by the taxation upon corporations, it was intended that the individual should be relieved from the imposition.

From the examination of the Globe Congressional Journal of the 41st Congress, * and of the original Journal of the House of Representatives, we learn that as originally reported and passing the House the words “ for and dui’ing the year 1871,” now making a part of the fifteenth section, were not in the bill; nor were there any corresponding woi’ds. The bill read:

“ That there shall be levied and collected a tax of two and one-half per centum on the amount of all interest or coupons, &e., . . . and on the amount of all dividends of earnings or gains . . . hereafter declared, whenever and wherever the . . . same shall be payable, and to whatsoever person the same may be due.”

As it thus stood the imposition of the tax upon the dividends of corporations ivas unlimited as to time.

The same record shows that the Senate amended the fifteenth section by inserting after the word collected as follows:

“ During the years 1871 and 1872.”

*318 So that it would read—

“ Be it enacted that there shall be levied and collected during the years 1871 and 1872 a tax of two and one-half per centum on the amount of all interest, &e.”

Up to this point it stands that the House proposed to tax the corporations upon their dividends and coupons without limit as to time, while the Senate desired to fix their liability to the taxes to be levied and assessed during the years-1871 and 1872.

The record further shows that the House disagreed to this and to other amendments of the Senate. There were many points of difference. A committee of conference was appointed, the chairman of which, Mr. Schenck, reported to the House on the 13th day of July, among other things, “that the House receded from their disagreement to the twentieth amendment of the Senate [the one above quoted], and agree to the same with the following amendment:

Strike out said Senate amendment and insert in lieu thereof the following: 1 for and during the year 1871.’ ”

This was agreed to, and the section which we are now considering became a law in its present form.

Connected directly with this point is the provision of section seventeen of the same act, viz., that sections 120, 121, 122, and 123 of the act of June, 1864, as amended, shall be construed to impose the taxes therein mentioned to the 1st day of August, 1870, but after that date no further taxes shall be levied or assessed under the said sections.

These sections are the ones imposing the imcome tax of five per cent, upon corporations, and that tax is thus continued upon corporations until August, 1870, and no longer.

The journal and record show two other facts:

1st. That the words “ hereafter declared,” in the fifteenth section of the act of 1870, immediately following the words “ dividends of earnings, income, or gains,” formed a part of the original bill as it passed the House and was sent to the Senate.

*319 2d. That the seventeenth section, by which it was enacted that the sections of the statute of 1864 imposing the income tax of five per cent, upon corporations, should be construed to impose the taxes therein mentioned to the 1st day of August, 1870, but that after that date no further tax shall be levied or assessed under those sections, formed no part of the original House bill. It was an amendment proposed on the part of the Senate, and agreed to by the House.

By section fifteen it is declared that this tax of two and one-half per cent, shall be imposed “ on the amount of all dividends of earnings, income, or gain hereafter declared ” by any bank, railroad company, trust company, &c. All the dividends which shall be thereafter declared by any bank or railroad company shall be taxed. No time is limited within which the dividend is to be declared. No restriction is made except that it shall be “ hereafter ” declared, i. e., after the 17th of July, 1870, the date of the passage of the act. The dividends in question were all declared after this date, and they fall within the general language made use of.

The first branch of the section directs the levying and collection of taxes on dividends for and during the year 1871; the latter branch imposes the tax upon all dividends thereafter declared.

Under these circumstances, we are compelled to ascertain the legislative intention by a recurrence to the mode in which the embarrassing words were introduced, as shown by the journals and records, and by giving such construction to the statute as we believe will'carry out the intentions of Congress.

The intention of the House upon the record we have quoted is plain. That body proposed to tax all dividends thereafter declared by corporations, but yielded to the indisposition of the Senate to assent to that principle.

The Senate proposed to amend this principle, first, by the limitation of the tax of five per cent, to August, 1870; aud, second, by inserting the words “ there shall be levied and collected during the years 1871 and 1872,” which gave a tax of two and a half per cent, for those two years. The order *320 in which these amendments were agreed to iix the Senate is not easily ascertained. The record does not show the time of the adoption of the second amendment by the Senate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Barnett v. Paxton
S.D. Texas, 2024
Mitsui & Co. v. United States
6 Cust. Ct. 105 (U.S. Customs Court, 1941)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Winslow
113 F.2d 418 (First Circuit, 1940)
Holly Holding Corp. v. Moss
246 A.D. 57 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1935)
Athens Stove Works, Inc. v. Fleming
66 F.2d 855 (Fourth Circuit, 1933)
United States v. E. De Grandmont, Inc.
21 C.C.P.A. 17 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1933)
Nash v. Giffen
246 N.W. 299 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1933)
Haussermann v. Commissioner
23 B.T.A. 378 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1931)
State v. Malusky
230 N.W. 735 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1930)
Rodenbough v. United States
25 F.2d 13 (Third Circuit, 1928)
Perko v. Rock Springs Commercial Co.
259 P. 520 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1927)
First State Bank v. Bottineau County Bank
185 P. 162 (Montana Supreme Court, 1919)
State v. Totten
175 N.W. 563 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1919)
United States v. Porto Rico Brewing Co.
11 P.R. Fed. 397 (D. Puerto Rico, 1919)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States
52 Ct. Cl. 338 (Court of Claims, 1917)
Caminetti v. United States
242 U.S. 470 (Supreme Court, 1917)
Tucker v. Williamson
229 F. 201 (S.D. Ohio, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 U.S. 307, 23 L. Ed. 119, 23 Wall. 307, 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blake-v-national-banks-scotus-1875.