Interstate Bond Co. v. State Revenue Commission

179 S.E. 559, 50 Ga. App. 744, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 587
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 2, 1934
Docket24058
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 179 S.E. 559 (Interstate Bond Co. v. State Revenue Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Interstate Bond Co. v. State Revenue Commission, 179 S.E. 559, 50 Ga. App. 744, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 587 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Opinion

Sutton, J.

On. August 8, 1933, the State Bevenue Commission issued aaginst the Interstate Bond Company, a domestic corporation, a tax execution for additional income tax due the State for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1932. The same was levied by a deputy sheriff of Fulton county on certain personalty, of the defendant.- Bond was given for the forthcoming of the property, and on September 15, 1933, the defendant filed its affidavit of illegality to the tax execution, setting up that the same was proceeding illegally for the reason that the tax sought to be collected was upon business done by it in States other than Georgia, and that under the income-tax act of 1931 the defendant was not liable to pay income tax upon income derived from business done outside this State. Defendant set up that for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1932, its gross income was $261,869.34, of which the sum of $114,982.44 was received from business done in Georgia, $87,555.95 was from business done in Florida, $17,981.37 was from business done in North Carolina, $39,128.96 was received from business done in Kentucky, and $2,220.60 from business done in Mississippi. The defendant further set up that for the fiscal year its total expenses amounted to $203,451.33, of which $101,241.42 related to business done by it in Georgia, $39,841.10 to business done in Florida, $23,976.29 to business done in North Carolina, $36,432.17 to business done in Kentucky, and $1,960.35 to business done in Mississippi. The defendant further set up that its net income for the fiscal year was therefore $13,741.02 from business done in Georgia, $47,714.85 from business done in Florida, that it sustained a loss of $5,994.92 from business in North Carolina, that its net income was $2,696.79 from business done in Kentucky and $260.77 from business done in Mississippi; that the only income for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1932, that is taxable under the income-tax act of 1931 is the net income on business done in the State of Georgia, which is $13,741.02; that the tax was assessed on the entire net income of the defendant, from business done outside of Georgia, as well as business doné herein, and the execution, which is for the full amount of the assessment, is therefore proceeding illegally.

The plaintiff in fi. fa. traversed the affidavit of illegality, and, upon the issue thus formed, the matter came on for a hearing before the superior court of Fulton county, the residence of the [746]*746defendant corporation. The case was submitted to a judge thereof, on the following agreed statement of facts, for determination without the intervention of a jury:

“ Interstate Bond Company in a Georgia corporation having its principal office and place of business in the City of Atlanta. It is engaged in the business of purchasing tax liens, and all of the income sought to be taxed arose by virtue of such business. The company operates in Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, Kentucky, Mississippi and Louisiana. It is not domiciled or domesticated in any State other than Georgia, but it has qualified to do business in Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi and Louisiana. It has not qualified to do business in North Carolina. Its method of operating in Kentucky, Mississippi, and Louisiana is as follows: The company has a State agent in each of these States, who maintains an office in the name of the Interstate Bond Company. These State agents are guaranteed certain salaries, and in addition are entitled to a commission on all business in excess of an agreed amount. Each State agent has appointed sub-agents in various localities within the State. These sub-agents work entirely on a commission basis. The statutes of each of these States in substance provide that the officer charged by law with the duty of collecting taxes shall, when so requested by any person liable for the payment of the tax, accept payment from any third person and thereupon execute and deliver to such third person a certificate of transfer, or certificate of subrogation, the effect of which is to transfer to the person making the payment the lien of the State or county or municipality assessing the tax. The statutes further require the recordation of such certificates.

“In each of these States the local agents of the company initiate the business by contacting the tax debtors and agreeing, subject to the approval of the State agent, that the company will pay the taxes due by the said tax debtors, take transfers of the tax liens, as authorized by the statutes, and, in consideration of the payment of certain charges hereinafter referred to as carrying charges, refrain from enforcing the tax liens for an agreed period of time. When a contract has been approved by the State agent, and has thereby become effective, the contract is delivered to the tax debtor, and the local agent of the company thereupon either delivers to the -tax-collector a draft drawn on the company in Atlanta, or [747]*747authorizes the tax-collector to draw a draft on the company in Atlanta, for the amount of the tax. The certificate of transfer, or certificate of subrogation, as the case may be, is thereupon executed by the tax-collector and delivered to the local agent of the company. When the certificate has been recorded, as required by the statutes in each of these States, the certificate is returned to the tax-collector and is attached to the draft above mentioned. One draft may, and in most instances does, include the amount of the taxes due by several tax debtors, in which event the several certificates of transfer are attached to the draft. These drafts are given by the agents of the company and are accepted by the tax-collectors, by whom or in whose favor they are drawn, as payment of the taxes, and are deposited as cash items. The company has never refused to pay any draft to which properly issued and recorded certificates of transfer, or certificates of subrogation, for the amount of the draft are attached. The carrying charges above referred to include interest for the period for which the company agrees to refrain from enforcing the tax lien. These charges are collected by the local agent at the time the contract is entered into, and before the draft above mentioned is drawn. The local agent deducts his commission and remits the balance to the company at its offices in Atlanta.

“At the expiration of the period for which the company has agreed to refrain from enforcing the tax lien, the contract may be renewed or extended for an additional agreed period of time; in which event the local agent who initiated the business collects from the tax debtor interest and carrying charges for the additional period, deducts therefrom his commission, and remits the balance to the company at its office in Atlanta.

“When the amount advanced by the company is due, under the contract with the tax debtor, the company notifies the debtor and the local agent, who initiated the business, of this fact and the local agent makes the collection, gives the debtor a receipt, remits the money to the company, and the company then cancels the certificate of transfer and sends it to the local agent for delivery to the debtor. Neither the State agent nor any local agent has authority to invest any of the proceeds of collections made by him, but both the State agent and the local agent are required to remit all collections to the Interstate Bond Company at its home office in [748]*748Atlanta, Georgia. During the time that elapses between the payment of the sight draft in the beginning and the time that the amount advanced by the company becomes duo, the certificate ol

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

Related

Chilivis v. International Business Machines Corp.
235 S.E.2d 626 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Rogers v. Chilivis
233 S.E.2d 451 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Henry C. Beck Co. v. Blackmon
206 S.E.2d 842 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Blackmon
199 S.E.2d 581 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Stockham Valves & Fittings, Inc. v. Williams
101 S.E.2d 197 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1957)
Cruse v. Stayput Clamp & Coupling Co.
156 P.2d 397 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1945)
Forrester v. Culpepper
22 S.E.2d 595 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Mexican Petroleum Corp. v. Head
13 S.E.2d 887 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
State Revenue Commission v. Alexander
187 S.E. 707 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
179 S.E. 559, 50 Ga. App. 744, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/interstate-bond-co-v-state-revenue-commission-gactapp-1934.