Philadelphia Eagles, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

4 Pa. Commw. 318, 1972 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 317
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 7, 1972
DocketAppeals, Nos. 608 Tr. Dkt. 1970, 609 Tr. Dkt. 1970, and 610 Tr. Dkt. 1970
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 Pa. Commw. 318 (Philadelphia Eagles, Inc. v. Department of Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Philadelphia Eagles, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 4 Pa. Commw. 318, 1972 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 317 (Pa. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Mencer,

The Philadelphia Eagles, Inc., a New York corporation (Eagles), has filed three separate appeals from the refusal of the Department of Revenue and the Auditor General to resettle the franchise tax and the corporate net income tax of the Eagles for the years 1963 and 1964. Petitions for review of the refusal to resettle were duly filed with the Board of Finance and Revenue which refused said petitions.

More specifically, these three appeals concern the franchise tax for the year 1963, the franchise tax for the period January 1, 1964 to February 3, 1964, and the corporate net income tax for the year 1963, of the Eagles. The appeals to this Court were taken pursuant to Section 1104 of the Fiscal Code of 1929, Act of April 9, 1929, P. L. 343, as amended, 72 P.S. §1104, and our jurisdiction is properly invoked under Section 508(a) (29) of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970, Act of July 31, 1970, P. L. 673, No. 223, 17 P.S. §211.508 (a) (29). These appeals were heard by the Court without a jury in accordance with an agreement of the parties entered of record and the provisions of the Act of April 22, 1874, P. L. 109, 12 P.S. §688, et seq. Testimony was taken by the Court without a jury and the case was argued before the Court en banc.

Findings of Fact

1. The Philadelphia Eagles, Inc., a New York corporation, within the time provided by law, filed with the Department of Revenue a combined report for franchise tax and corporate net income tax for the calendar year 1963.

2. The corporate net income tax for 1963 was settled in the amount of $27,577.83, as reported and paid by the taxpayer, Eagles.

3. The franchise tax for 1963 was settled in the amount of $25,000, reflecting a capital stock valuation [321]*321of $5,000,000, in contrast to the initial paid tax of $5,000 and the Eagles’ self-assessed capital stock valuation of $1,000,000.

4. The franchise tax for the period of January 1, 1964, to February 4, 1964, was settled in the amount of $2,328.77, reflecting a capital stock valuation of $5,000,000, in contrast to the initial paid tax of $420 and the Eagles’ self-assessed capital stock valuation of $1,000,000.

5. Eagles filed petitions for resettlement of the franchise tax for 1963 and the 34-day period of 1964 and of the corporate net income tax for the year 1963, based upon (a) the use of a taxable proportion allocable to Pennsylvania of 80.6123 percent rather than 100 percent as shown on its original reports and (b) the self-assessed capital stock valuation of $1,000,000.

6. There were no shares of capital stock of Eagles sold in 1963.

7. All the shares of capital stock of Eagles were sold on February 3, 1964, for $5,505,500 cash.

8. The indebtedness of Eagles on February 3, 1964 was zero.

9. The net income of Eagles for the year 1963 was $226,123.

10. The dividend paid by Eagles in the year 1963 was $91,000.

11. The report of Eagles relative to its franchise tax and corporate net income tax for the year 1962 was accepted by the Commonwealth with a capital stock valuation of $1,000,000.

12. The Commonwealth’s settlement of the Eagles’ franchise tax for 1963 and the 34-day period of 1964 upon a valuation of $5,000,000 was due directly to the sale of Eagles’ stock on February 3, 1964 for $5,505,500 cash.

[322]*322Discussion

Here we are confronted with the question as to whether or not the valuation placed on the capital stock of the Eagles by the Commonwealth in connection with the reports involved was correct. Eagles reported the value of its capital stock at $1,000,000 but the Commonwealth on the settlement valued the capital stock at $5,000,000.

The Act of June 1, 1889, P. L. 420, §21, as amended, 72 P.S. §1871, levies a franchise tax upon a taxable value of the foreign corporation’s capital stock and provides that the actual value of said stock shall be ascertained in the manner prescribed in the twentieth section of the Act, 72 P.S. §1902, which provides that the capital stock shall be valued and appraised “at its actual value in cash as it existed at the close of the year for which report is made; taking into consideration, first, the average which said stock sold for during the year; and second, the price or value indicated or measured by net earnings or by the amount of profit made and either declared in dividends, expended in betterments, or carried into the surplus or sinking fund; and third, the actual value indicated or measured by consideration of the intrinsic value of its tangible property and assets, and of the value of its good will and franchises and privileges, as indicated by the material results of their exercise, taking also into consideration the amount of its indebtedness.”

The statute directs that a determination be made of the “actual value in cash” of the capital stock of the corporation. In the instant case the capital stock of Eagles was exchanged for cash in the amount of $5,-505,500 on February 3, 1964, which was the end of the reporting period for the franchise tax covering the 34-day period in 1964. On that date, in the absence of any indebtedness of the corporation, as was the case here, [323]*323the actual value in cash was fully determined. It must be remembered that on February 3, 1964, there was no need to attempt to ascertain the actual value in cash since it was ascertained and established by the exchange of the stock for a definite amount of cash. While the statute admonishes us to “[take] into consideration” the three elements: the selling price of the stock during the year, the net earnings or profit and dividends paid, and the intrinsic value of its assets less its indebtedness, the statute nowhere indicates what weight should be put on any of the three elements, but surely they can have no weight in connection with a determination of the actual value in cash of Eagles’ stock on February 3, 1964, for on that day Eagles received $5,505,500 in exchange for the stock, and in the absence of indebtedness the “actual value in cash” was ascertained and it existed as the definite sum of money received. However, the Commonwealth upon settlement placed the value at $5,000,000, apparently making an arbitrary but fair allowance for fees and other transfer costs related to the sale of the stock. We will not disturb that value determination by the taxing authorities.

Next we must consider what was the actual value in cash 34 days prior to February 3, 1964, that is, on December 31, 1963, which was the close of the year for which the prior report was made. The Commonwealth contends, understandably so, that the money received for the stock within 34 days of December 31, 1963, is the primary factor in determining the valuation of the stock on that date. In Commonwealth v. Pomeroy’s, Inc., 344 Pa. 538, 541, 26 A. 2d 197, 199 (1942), it was stated: “Valuation for capital stock tax purposes is not just a matter of figures and accounting; judgment as to value is required. We repeat what was said in Com. v. Penna. R. R. Co., 297 Pa. 308, 317, 147 A. 242, ‘the value of capital stock is not a matter of strict formula [324]*324but a matter of judgment. “Common sense and practical every-day business experience are the best guides for those entrusted with the administration of tax laws. Taxation is a practical and not a scientific problem.” ’ ”

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

Related

Stenton Gardens, Inc. v. Commonwealth
314 A.2d 549 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
Chrysel Corp. v. Commonwealth
295 A.2d 624 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Pa. Commw. 318, 1972 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philadelphia-eagles-inc-v-department-of-revenue-pacommwct-1972.