Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

First National Bank of Wellington v. Chapman

First Nat’l Bank of Wellington v. Chapman, 173 U.S. 205 (1899)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1899-02-27
Topic
general

*211 Me. Justice Peckham, after stating the facts, delivered the, opinion of the court. Complaint is made in behalf of the shareholders of the national bank in question that they are, by means of the sys *212 tem of taxation adopted and enforced in the State of Ohio, subjected to taxation at a greater rate than is imposed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens, *213 contrary to section 5219 of the Eevised Statutes of the United States. The complaint is founded upon the allegation that the owners of what is termed credits in the law of Ohio, (Rev. Stat. § 2730,) are permitted to deduct certain kinds of their debts from the total amount of their credits, and such owners are assessed upon the balance only, while no such right is given , to owners of shares in national banks.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed First National Bank of Wellington v. Chapman. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
48 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Tax Law — National Bank Shares (Rev. Stat. § 5219) The principal purpose of Congress in fixing limits on state taxation of investments in national banks was to make it impossible for a State, in levying such a tax, to create and fix unequal and unfriendly competition by favoring institutions or individuals carrying on a similar business and operations and investments of a like character; the language of the federal act is to be read in light of that policy. 173 U.S. at 213-214
  2. Tax Law — Meaning of "Moneyed Capital" The term "moneyed capital," as used in the federal statute limiting state taxation of national bank shares, does not include capital which does not come into competition with the business of national banks; it does not mean all capital the value of which is measured in terms of money, nor necessarily include all forms of investment in which the owner's interest is expressed in money. 173 U.S. at 214-215
  3. Tax Law — Exemptions and Discrimination Exemptions from taxation, however large — such as deposits in savings banks or moneys belonging to charitable institutions — which are made for reasons of public policy and not as an unfriendly discrimination against investments in national bank shares, cannot be regarded as forbidden by the federal statute limiting state taxation of national banks. 173 U.S. at 215
  4. Tax Law — Equality Between State and National Banks Where the State taxes shareholders of national banks and shareholders of incorporated state banks precisely alike, and its system of taxation was not intended to discriminate against national bank shareholders, there is no illegal assessment of national bank shareholders unless there is a clear discrimination in favor of moneyed capital other than that employed in either state or national banks. 173 U.S. at 217
  5. Tax Law — Unincorporated Banks and Bankers A state law permitting unincorporated banks and bankers to deduct from the capital employed in the banking business the debts incurred in the actual conduct of that business — so that the real value of the capital employed may be determined and taxed — works no discrimination against national bank shareholders, because the same result of assessing the value of the capital employed after deducting the debts of the business is reached for incorporated banks by listing their shares at true value in money, which necessarily reflects the bank's liabilities. 173 U.S. at 215-217
  6. Tax Law — Equality in Assessment Mathematical equality in a system of taxation cannot be reached; equality so far as the differing facts will permit, and as near as they will permit, is all that can be aimed at or reached, and a system attaining that measure of equality is sufficient to defeat a claim of forbidden discrimination. 173 U.S. at 217
  7. Tax Law — Deduction of Indebtedness — Credits Not all property characterized as "credits" under state law is moneyed capital within the meaning of the federal act; the definition of credits includes claims for labor and professional services that are not moneyed capital, so a record failing to show what portion of total credits consists of moneyed capital in competition with national banks does not establish a forbidden discrimination in favor of credits over national bank shares. 173 U.S. at 218-221
  8. Tax Law — Burden of Proving Discrimination A national bank shareholder challenging a state tax as discriminating against national bank shares bears the burden of showing an unfavorable discrimination in favor of other moneyed capital; where the record affords no means of ascertaining whether such discrimination exists and nothing on the face of the statutes shows it, the shareholder has failed to make out a case for the intervention of the court. 173 U.S. at 221-222