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
placed in the Federal Home Loan Bank, 2) prepaid insurance premiums
credited to the secondary reserve Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), 3) and bonds
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.
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
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),
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.
The OTC concluded that all the income from these sources was subject to state taxation under 12 U.S.C. 1464(h).
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,
that taxation of the banks operation would substantially burden governmental activities,
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,
and that the supremacy
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,
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:
“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
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.
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.
Congress amended § 548
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
by the Federal Home Loan Bank Act.
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.
The protestants argue, and correctly so, that the “borrowing clause” of the United States Constitution
as well as 31 U.S.C. § 3124,
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
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
placed in the Federal Home Loan Bank, 2) prepaid insurance premiums
credited to the secondary reserve Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), 3) and bonds
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.
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
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),
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.
The OTC concluded that all the income from these sources was subject to state taxation under 12 U.S.C. 1464(h).
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,
that taxation of the banks operation would substantially burden governmental activities,
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,
and that the supremacy
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,
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:
“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
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.
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.
Congress amended § 548
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
by the Federal Home Loan Bank Act.
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.
The protestants argue, and correctly so, that the “borrowing clause” of the United States Constitution
as well as 31 U.S.C. § 3124,
prohibit the state from directly taxing interest on federal obligations. However, the question posed here is whether the assets subjected to taxation qualify for an exemption from state tax under either specific statutory or general constitutional principles.
Title 12 U.S.C. § 1464(h)
allows states to tax federal savings and loan associations, their franchises, reserves, surplus, loans, and income if the taxation is not greater than that imposed on similar local mutual or cooperative thrift and home financing institutions. In
Sooner Federal Savings and Loan Assoc, v. Oklahoma Tax Commission,
662 P.2d 1366, 1369 (Okla.1982)
app. dism’d
April 18, 1983, 460 U.S. 1075, 103 S.Ct. 1760, 76 L.Ed.2d 337, this Court, after reviewing § 1464(h) and the case law emanating therefrom, held that the statute supported non-discriminatory state taxation of
all
the income of federal savings and loans.
I
THE INTEREST EARNED ON FHLMC BONDS IS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION.
The FHLMC issued bonds pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1455,
which provides that
if the purchase of the bonds is limited by state law, they shall be considered to be an obligation of the United States for purposes of the limitation. Oklahoma does limit the investment in FHLMC stock to 5% of the savings and loan associations assets.
The bonds are considered obligations of the United States and any interest thereon also would be exempt from taxation.
II
INTEREST RECEIVED FROM THE OVERNIGHT/DEMAND DEPOSITS IS NOT EXEMPT FROM TAXATION
The protestants contend that the overnight/demand deposits are actually loans to the FHLB thereby constituting obligations under 31 U.S.C. § 3124
and 12 U.S.C. § 1433. The pertinent portion of § 1433 provides:
“Any and all notes, debentures, bonds and other such obligations issued by any bank, and consolidated Federal Home Loan Bank bonds and debentures, shall be exempt both as to principal and interest from all taxation ...”
The word “obligations” could be interpreted to embrace virtually everything which a bank is bound to pay. We must determine how broadly the “obligations” are to be construed and precisely what income is covered by the exemption. In discerning the scope of the word “obligations,” we must bear in mind that the settled rule of construction is that tax exemptions are not to be inferred lightly,
nor will exemptions be applied unless they are already granted by statute.
Apparently, by using the term “issued”, the obligations referred to in the statute are those which might be issued in the exercise of the borrowing power of the United States.
The United States Supreme Court’s decision in
Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. San Francisco,
200 U.S. 310, 315, 26 S.Ct. 265, 267, 50 L.Ed. 495 (1906), is helpful. In question there was the validity of a tax imposed by the State of California on checks or orders signed by the Treasurer of the United States. Section 3701 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C.A. § 742) provided that “stocks, bonds, Treasury notes, and other obligations of the United States, shall be exempt from taxation by or under state or municipal or local authority.”
In
Hibernia,
the Court noted that the basis of this exemption was that a tax upon the obligations of the United States virtually taxes the credit of the Government; that it impairs its power to raise money for the purpose of carrying on its civil and military operations; and that a tax which dimin
ishes, in the slightest degree, the value of the obligations issued by the Government for that purpose impairs
pro tanto
their market value. However, the Court held that although the checks could be considered to be obligations of the United States within the letter of the exemption statute, they were not within its spirit. The court relied on 28 Stat. 278, August 13, 1894, recodified as 31 U.S.C. § 5154 (1983):
“A State or a territory or possession of the United States may tax United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) as money on hand or on deposit in the same way and at the same rate that the State, territory, or possession taxes other forms of money. This section does not affect a law taxing national banks.”
“Obligations” as used in an exemption clause when construed with the general purposes of the exemption may not necessarily be all-embracing.
The fact that in
Hibernia
the money was deposited in a federal bank and interest was paid to the protestants did not prevent it from becoming a part of the general property of the bank and subject to state taxation.
We find that ovemight/demand deposits are subject to taxation by the State of Oklahoma.
Ill
THE INTEREST EARNED ON FNMA BONDS IS TAXABLE.
The savings and loan associations contend that the bonds issued by FNMA are tax exempt. We do not agree. The FNMA is authorized to issue obligations under 12 U.S.C. § 1719(b).
The authorizing statute requires that bonds issued under this section contain language disclaiming that the obligations are not notes or obligations of the United States or any agency other than the issuing corporation. Obviously, the intent of § 1719 is that these bonds are not permanent public debts exempt from taxation.
The savings and loan associations rely on
Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Gamer,
459 U.S. 392, 398, 103 S.Ct. 692, 696, 74 L.Ed.2d 562, 568 (1983), in which the United States Supreme Court found that the Tennessee bank tax violated the immunity of obligations of the United States from state and local taxation. The tax was held to be discriminatory in favor of securities issued by Tennessee and its political subdivisions.
There, the bonds issued by the Federal Farm Credit Banks did not contain the language “not a debt or obligation of the United States,” and the Court found that it was an obligation under 31 U.S.C. § 742 because no distinction had been made between the obligations of the United States Treasury and the obligations of the Federal Credit Banks. Here, § 1719 specifically mandates that the bonds issued by FNMA are not obligations of the United States.
The savings and loan associations assert that the state’s imposition of a tax on federal obligations but not on state obligations is discriminatory. This appeal involves the threshold question of whether obligations held by appellants constitute obligations of a federal agency qualifying for exemption from state tax under either specific statutory authority or general constitutional
principles — the proper classification of the obligations themselves is an issue on appeal. Even so, the issue of discrimination was not raised in the hearing before the Oklahoma Tax Commission and is not properly preserved on appeal.
Nevertheless, because the State of Oklahoma taxes neither federal nor state exempted obligations no discrimination is apparent. Title 68 O.S. Supp.1982 § 2358,
specifically provides that income which is exempt under the Federal Constitution, State Constitution, federal laws or laws of Oklahoma is shielded from taxation. Discrimination is not the issue, the question is whether the bonds are federal obligations and as such are exempt. We find that the FNMA bonds were specifically excluded from obligations of the United States and that the interest is taxable.
IY.
THE INTEREST RECEIVED FROM THE SECONDARY RESERVES IS TAXABLE
The savings and loan associations contend that the interest income earned on the secondary reserve maintained by the FSLIC is not subject to Oklahoma corporate income tax. We disagree. The FSLIC is obligated to insure the accounts of federal savings and loan associations.
Insured institutions are charged annual premiums and, at one time, were also required to make contributions to the FSLIC secondary reserve.
Since 1973, no prepayments of insurance premiums have been made. The secondary reserve is only available to the FSLIC when losses occur, and then only to the extent other available accounts are insufficient.
Each insured institution has a
pro rata
share in the secondary reserve.
It is not
assignable or transferable except under circumstances set by the FSLIC, e.g., approved mergers, consolidations, or similar situations.
A separate account is maintained for each insured institution’s share of the secondary reserve and a statement issued annually.
The FSLIC uses the funds to pay the savings and loan associations insurance premiums under § 1727(g).
An insured institution may obtain a cash refund of its
pro rata
share if its status as an insured is terminated or upon receivership or liquidation.
In
Commissioner v. Lincoln Savings and Loan Association,
403 U.S. 345, 356, 91 S.Ct. 1893, 1900, 29 L.Ed. 519, 528 (1971), the Court recognized that each insured institution has a distinct and recognized property interest in the secondary reserve. The Court also noted that savings and loan associations were required under federal and state requirements to show the interest credited by the FSLIC as an asset on its balance sheet and the credit as income. We, therefore, find that the interest is taxable income, not an exempt obligation.
CONCLUSION
We find that the bonds issued by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation are exempt from taxation, but that the overnight demand deposits, the bonds issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association, and the interest credited to the FSLIC’s secondary reserve are taxable.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
DOOLIN, C.J., and HODGES, OPALA, KAUGER and SUMMERS, JJ., concur.
LAVENDER and HARGRAVE, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.
SIMMS, J., concurs in Parts I, II, IV, dissents from Part III.