In re Assessment of Taxes, Castle

Hawaii Supreme Court

In re Assessment of Taxes, Castle

18 Haw. 129, 1906 Haw. LEXIS 8

CourtHawaii Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 12, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 Haw. 129 (In re Assessment of Taxes, Castle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Assessment of Taxes, Castle, 18 Haw. 129, 1906 Haw. LEXIS 8 (haw 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OP THE COURT BY

WILDER, J.

Tbis is an appeal by J. B. Castle from a decision of the tax appeal court of the first taxation division assessing an income tax against him on a profit of $120,000 which he made in a stock transaction. He bought the stock in 1898 and sold it between July 1 and December 31, 1905. At the argument the court decided the case from the bench reversing the decision of the tax appeal court.

The appellant contended that this profit is not taxable because (1) it was not an income derived during the taxation period in question, namely, from July 1, 1905, to January 1, 1906, and (2) it was not taxable under the statute in any event.

On the first point raised the appeal is sustained and the decision of the tax appeal court reversed. All that the statute attempts to tax is the income derived during a certain period. The period in question in this case was for the six months prior to January 1, 1906. R. L., Sec. 1218, as amended by act 87 of the Laws of 1905, provides for a tax on the amount derived “during the taxation periods as herein defined,” and that the [130]*130Erst taxation period “shall be the half year immediately preceding the first day in January, 1906.” R. L., See. 1280, as ■.amended by the same act, provides that in estimating gains, profits and income they shall be derived “during said taxation period.” The income in question was not derived during the •six months preceding January 1, 1906, and therefore was not taxable as gains, profits and income derived during that period. See Gray v. Darlington, 15 Wall. 63.

D. L. Withington, (Oasile & Withmgton on the brief), for the taxpayer. ‘ M. F. Prosser, Deputy Attorney General, for tax assessor.

The second contention of the .appellant was that a profit derived from the purchase and sale of shares of stock is not taxable under the statute, that is, that unless shares of stock are held to be movable property profits derived from the sale of them less the cost of purchase cannot be taxed. It is unnecessary to pass on this question.

Eor the foregoing reasons the .appeal is sustained and the decision of the tax appeal court reversed as heretofore decided.

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

OPINION OP THE COURT BY

WILDER, J.

Tbis is an appeal by J. B. Castle from a decision of the tax appeal court of the first taxation division assessing an income tax against him on a profit of $120,000 which he made in a stock transaction. He bought the stock in 1898 and sold it between July 1 and December 31, 1905. At the argument the court decided the case from the bench reversing the decision of the tax appeal court.

The appellant contended that this profit is not taxable because (1) it was not an income derived during the taxation period in question, namely, from July 1, 1905, to January 1, 1906, and (2) it was not taxable under the statute in any event.

On the first point raised the appeal is sustained and the decision of the tax appeal court reversed. All that the statute attempts to tax is the income derived during a certain period. The period in question in this case was for the six months prior to January 1, 1906. R. L., Sec. 1218, as amended by act 87 of the Laws of 1905, provides for a tax on the amount derived “during the taxation periods as herein defined,” and that the [130]*130Erst taxation period “shall be the half year immediately preceding the first day in January, 1906.” R. L., See. 1280, as ■.amended by the same act, provides that in estimating gains, profits and income they shall be derived “during said taxation period.” The income in question was not derived during the •six months preceding January 1, 1906, and therefore was not taxable as gains, profits and income derived during that period. See Gray v. Darlington, 15 Wall. 63.

D. L. Withington, (Oasile & Withmgton on the brief), for the taxpayer. ‘ M. F. Prosser, Deputy Attorney General, for tax assessor.

The second contention of the .appellant was that a profit derived from the purchase and sale of shares of stock is not taxable under the statute, that is, that unless shares of stock are held to be movable property profits derived from the sale of them less the cost of purchase cannot be taxed. It is unnecessary to pass on this question.

Eor the foregoing reasons the .appeal is sustained and the decision of the tax appeal court reversed as heretofore decided.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Haw. 129, 1906 Haw. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-assessment-of-taxes-castle-haw-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack