Grant, Collector v. Hartford and New Haven Railroad Company

93 U.S. 225, 23 L. Ed. 878, 3 Otto 225, 1876 U.S. LEXIS 1372, 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2386

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: November 27, 1876
• Docket: 86
• Status: Published

Opinion

Ms. Justice Bradley

delivered the opinion of the court.

The company having returned the entire balance of their gross earnings over and above current expenses, in the shape of dividends and surplus, for the period in question, and paid the regular tax thereon, we do not see why this was not a full compliance with the law. The object of the law was to impose a tax on net income, or profits, only; and that cannot be regarded as net income, or profits, which is required and expended to keep the property up in its usual condition proper for operation. Such expenditure. is properly classed with repairs, which are a part of the current expenses. If a railroad company should make a second track when they had but a single track before, this would be a betterment or permanent improvement, and, if paid out of the earnings, would be fairly characterized as “ profits used in construction.” The works of the company would have an additional value to what they had before, with an increased capacity for producing future profits. This kind of expenditure is what Congress meant to reach, when, in the one hundred and twenty-second section- referred to, it imposed a tax not only on the dividends of every railroad, canal, and turnpike company, but also on “ all profits of such company carried to the account of any fund, or used for construction.” The counsel for the government insists that this bridge was a betterment, because it was much more valuable than the old wooden bridge. But the assessor did not include the excess merely: he assessed the whole expenditure bestowed upon the new bridge, without making any allowance for the old one. His idea seems to have been, that all earnings used in new constructions are made taxable by the act, without reference to betterments, or to their being substituted for other constructions. Indeed, his assessment is not for ‘•'•profits used in construction,” but for “ earnings used in constructing new Windsor Bridge, $55,712.60.” In this view he was decidedly wrong. Earnings expended on a new structure may or may not be profits. Whether they are or not depends on other, things to be taken into the account besides the mere fact of such expenditure. Had the assessment been merely for the increased valué of the new bridge over the old one when in good repair, the' case might have admitted of very different consideration.

Judgment affirmed.