Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. City of Malden

71 N.E.2d 601, 321 Mass. 46, 1947 Mass. LEXIS 572
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedFebruary 13, 1947
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 71 N.E.2d 601 (Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. City of Malden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. City of Malden, 71 N.E.2d 601, 321 Mass. 46, 1947 Mass. LEXIS 572 (Mass. 1947).

Opinion

Ronan, J.

These are three appeals by the commissioner of corporations and taxation from decisions of the Appellate Tax Board that the city of Malden is entitled to share in the proceeds of the corporate franchise tax paid in 1943 by the Malden Electric Company to the extent of $28,532.57, and to share in a similar tax paid by this company in 1944 to the extent of $29,894.76, and that the city is also entitled to share in the proceeds of the corporate franchise tax paid in 1943 by the Malden and Melrose Gas Light Company to the extent of $3,526.18.

The electric company was incorporated under the laws of this Commonwealth in 1888 for the purpose of “generating, selling and distributing electricity for light, heat and mechanical power, and carrying on a general electric light, heat and power business.” It conducts this business in Malden, Melrose, Medford and Everett. Its principal place of business is located in Malden.

The gas company is a domestic corporation which, since its organization in 1854, has engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing and selling gas for illumination, [48]*48cooking, heating, commercial and industrial purposes to customers in Malden, Medford, Melrose, Everett, Reading, Stoneham and Wakefield. Its principal place of business is in Malden.

While the commissioner has contended that the notices sent to the treasurer and assessors of the city under the dates of November 22, 1943, and November 13, 1944, were valid notices that he had decided that the city was not entitled to any portion of the corporate franchise taxes paid in 1943 and 1944 by the gas and electric companies, yet he has also contended that, if these notices were insufficient, the three appeals to the board ought to have been dismissed because no appeal would lie until after the city treasurer had been notified by the commissioner of his decision.

We first decide whether the two appeals by the city with reference to the 1943 taxes were prematurely taken because they were filed with the board before a proper notice had been given to the city treasurer.

The commissioner on November 22, 1943, sent to the treasurer and assessors of Malden a form letter advising them that the city had been credited with certain amounts received from the collection of taxes in 1943, listing and describing three items, with the statutory references, and showing the specific amount due to the city on each of these items. The letter, however, made no mention whatever of the corporate franchise taxes that had been collected from the gas and electric companies. There was nothing in it indicating that the commissioner had made any decision as to the share of the city in these taxes, much less that he had decided that nothing was due to the city. This letter cannot be held to constitute a notice that the commissioner had ascertained that no part of the proceeds of these taxes should be paid to the city. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Springfield, decided this day.

The mayor of Malden under date of September 18, 1944, wrote to the commissioner, stating that he had learned from the city controller that the city had not received its proportionate share of the corporate franchise taxes for the years 1943 and 1944, and requesting that the commissioner [49]*49inform him the reason the city had not been paid. The commissioner replied on September 21, 1944, “that there was no sum distributable to Malden in 1943 or 1944.” The board found that this was the only notice that the city had received of the commissioner’s determination that the city was not entitled to any share of the corporate franchise taxes paid in 1943 by the gas and electric companies, and that the letter to the mayor was a proper notice of the decision of the commissioner. The question is,whether the letter constitutes the notice required by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 58, § 25, as appearing in St. 1934, c. 323, § 3, as. amended by St. 1941, c. 729, § 11. See now St. 1945, c. 687. It was the duty of the commissioner under § 25 to ascertain what amount, if any, was due to each town and to “notify the treasurer of each town thereof.” Notice thereof must refer to a decision already made, Checkoway v. Cashman Brothers Co. 305 Mass. 470, 471, and notification imports actual receipt of the notice. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., petitioner, 298 Mass. 75. Hobart-Farrell Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Klayman, 302 Mass. 508, 509.

The mayor is the chief executive officer of the city, having general supervision over the various municipal departments and the conduct of its officers and employees. A notice to him concerning a matter in which the city has a pecuniary or proprietary interest, or a right to protect or enforce, is generally regarded, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, to be a sufficient notice to the city. Nichols v. Boston, 98 Mass. 39. Commercial Wharf Corp. v. Boston, 194 Mass. 460. Rollins v. Salem, 251 Mass. 468. Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway v. Mayor of Fall River, 308 Mass. 232. But a statute may prescribe, as does § 25, the city official to whom notice is to be given or with whom a notice is to be filed. The purpose of § 25 providing for notice to the city treasurer is to make certain that the municipal officer who is in immediate charge of its financial affairs, the receipt of its revenues and the disbursement of its funds, is apprised of the decision of the commissioner, in order that he may see that all sums to which the city is entitled are credited to it in settling its accounts with the [50]*50Commonwealth and, if the decision of the commissioner appears to be erroneous, consult -with the appropriate municipal officials in order that an appeal may be taken. The decision becomes operative as to the city when notice is received by the city treasurer. Notice fixes the rights of the city, which may accept the decision or seek to reverse it by an appeal — a remedy that we do not think becomes available until an actual notice is given to the treasurer. The simple and expedient method devised by the Legislature for the protection of the rights of the city in the proceeds of the corporate franchise taxes paid by corporations engaged there in the business of manufacturing and selling gas and electricity merely requires a notice to the city treasurer and to no other city official. Where a statute provides for the giving of a notice to or the filing of a statement with a designated municipal officer, the giving of a notice to or the filing of a statement with a different municipal officer is invalid; and this is so even though the officer designated by the statute to receive it knows that it has been given to or filed with some other municipal officer. Tower v. Miller, 211 Mass. 113. Powers Regulator Co. v. Taylor, 225 Mass. 292. T. Shea, Inc. v. Springfield, 252 Mass. 571. O’Connell v. Cambridge, 258 Mass. 203. Dooling v. Malden, 258, Mass. 570. Merrill v. Springfield, 284 Mass. 260. King v. Boston, 300 Mass. 377. While the right to appeal does not accrue until notice has been given by the commissioner to the city treasurer, the city cannot be unduly delayed in asserting its claims by the failure of the commissioner to give such notice because he can be compelled to make a decision and notify the treasurer. Knights v. Treasurer & Receiver General, 236 Mass. 336. Milton v. Auditor of the Commonwealth, 244 Mass. 93.

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

Related

Frankston v. Ferme
2007 Mass. App. Div. 203 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 2007)
Locator Services Group, Ltd. v. Treasurer & Receiver General
825 N.E.2d 78 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2005)
Trust Insurance v. Commissioner of Insurance
724 N.E.2d 710 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2000)
Johnson v. State
636 P.2d 47 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1981)
Niles v. Boston Rent Control Administrator
374 N.E.2d 296 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1978)
Scola v. City of Gloucester
27 Mass. App. Dec. 152 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1964)
O'Malley v. Public Improvement Commission of Boston
174 N.E.2d 668 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1961)
Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. City of Malden
98 N.E.2d 277 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1951)
Previews, Inc. v. Everets
94 N.E.2d 267 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 N.E.2d 601, 321 Mass. 46, 1947 Mass. LEXIS 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioner-of-corporations-taxation-v-city-of-malden-mass-1947.