Protest of Great Plains Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

743 P.2d 640
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedOctober 6, 1987
Docket64673, 64674
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 743 P.2d 640 (Protest of Great Plains Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Oklahoma Tax Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Protest of Great Plains Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 743 P.2d 640 (Okla. 1987).

Opinion

KAUGER, Justice.

The issue presented is whether certain corporate income earned by Oklahoma savings and loan associations is exempt from taxation by the state of Oklahoma. The income in question includes the interest earned on 1) overnight/demand deposits 1 placed in the Federal Home Loan Bank, 2) prepaid insurance premiums 2 credited to the secondary reserve Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), 3) and bonds 3 issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC). We find that the FHLMC bonds are exempt from taxation, but that the interest on the overnight/demand deposits, the bonds issued by FNMA, and the interest credited to the secondary reserve are taxable.

After office audits of the appellants, First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Claremore and Great Plains Federal Savings and Loan Association of Weatherford, the Oklahoma Tax Commission (OTC) issued its proposed assessment of additional income tax, penalties, and interest. The appellant savings and loan associations filed timely protests pursuant to 68 O.S. 1981 § 221. 4 However, because the parties stipulated to the facts, no formal hearing was conducted.

The contention of the protesting savings and loan associations before the Oklahoma *642 Tax Commission was that the income subjected to taxation was either earned on federal obligations or that it was exempt from taxation by controlling federal statutes. After considering this argument, the Oklahoma Tax Commission on May 30, 1985, denied the protests, finding that the income earned on the overnight/demand deposits, the fed-funded transactions in the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB), 5 the prepaid premiums to the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), the bonds issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) were not federal obligations pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §§ 1433, 1725. 6 The OTC concluded that all the income from these sources was subject to state taxation under 12 U.S.C. 1464(h). 7 The savings and loans appealed the Commission’s findings except its finding that the income earned on the fed-funded transactions was taxable.

HISTORY OF THE STATE TAXATION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

The first significant controversy involving taxation of banks arose in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat) 316, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819) when the state of Maryland attempted to tax bank notes issued by the Second Bank of the United States. The United States Supreme Court held that the bank was an instrumentality of the federal government, 8 that taxation of the banks operation would substantially burden governmental activities, 9 that the bank was a necessary and proper incident of the congressional power to lay and collect taxes and to borrow money, that the tax violated the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, 10 and that the supremacy *643 clause vested Congress with the ability to override state laws in conflict with the exercise of constitutionally delegated congressional powers.

In 1819, the federal reserve system was non-existent, it was uncertain whether the federal government could issue money, 11 and the Second Bank played a major role in the federal government’s fiscal and monetary affairs. Nevertheless, the Court recognized that the general power of taxation by the states extends to certain aspects of federal instrumentalities: 12

“This opinion does not deprive the States of any resources which they originally possessed. It does not extend to a tax paid by the real property of the bank, in common with the other real property within the State, nor to a tax imposed on the interest which the citizens of Maryland may hold in this institution, in common with other property of the same description throughout the state. But this (tax on note issuance) is a tax on the operations of the bank, and is, consequently, a tax on the operations of an instrument employed by the government of the Union to carry its powers into execution.”

The Borrowing 13 and Supremacy clauses of the Constitution do not prohibit the states from taxing personal property representing an interest in a federal instrumentality as long as the property interest is not taxed in a discriminatory manner when compared to similar investment property. This balancing of state and federal powers was the reason for the subsequent enactment of 12 U.S.C. § 548 in 1864, which allowed a bank share tax on national bank stock held in the hands of individuals to be taxed. Even so, the tax could not be levied at a greater rate than that applied to state-chartered banks or other moneyed capital. 14

In recent years, it has been recognized by Congress that national banks are no longer significant federal instrumentalities, and that general taxation of their activities has little effect on the operation of the federal government’s fiscal and monetary affairs. 15 Congress amended § 548 16 in 1969, to permit the general taxation of national banks — limited only by the nondiscrimination requirement relative to state-chartered banks, and possible constitutional requirements under the supremacy and borrowing clauses. The Federal Home Loan Bank Board was established in 1932 *644 by the Federal Home Loan Bank Act. 17 In 1933, the Board was authorized to charter and supervise federal savings and loan associations, local mutual thrift institutions in which people could invest funds to provide financing for homes. 18

The protestants argue, and correctly so, that the “borrowing clause” of the United States Constitution 19 as well as 31 U.S.C. § 3124, 20 prohibit the state from directly taxing interest on federal obligations.

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

Related

Roxborough Manayunk Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Commonwealth
687 A.2d 1202 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1997)
Bell Federal Savings & Loan v. Wagner
Appellate Court of Illinois, 1996
Bell Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Wagner
675 N.E.2d 135 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1996)
Duncan Medical Services v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission
1994 OK 91 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1994)
Opinion No. (1989)
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1989

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
743 P.2d 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protest-of-great-plains-federal-savings-loan-assn-v-oklahoma-tax-okla-1987.