,,_, ‘, ~‘i~&ablr Ri t, Oroslor, page 11 

,, ‘, 

mefini of tax* the wrooiml propeity of ttite 

; banking odrporatlono in the hands of the, ehar 

holdora. It follows from thlr that suoh carporatlona are mt now roquirod~to rendor thelt, 

permonal progorty ror taxation;, . . .* , 

,’ 

Tho &me oozietruotlon of the Toxar rtatuts’r iavb~ved ‘. 

vai srrnounood by thp Court of Civil‘ f@.r,petiB Of %‘oxncr in the 

ome 0r First ITatlonnl Bank 0r Impaaos vr: City or.uimpaa~ 

y ; ;, : 

.78 8, w. 42, writ or erroti dlemiossd by the S&rem Coui+t., ,ih& * “, 

.-oouPt rtatod an r0im8t 

. 

“It iti settled by doolrrfonrr of the Suproni, Cow: of the United Statea that it linot 

.,, ” uithln the $ovor Of a etate to eubjeat tW proparty of natlonal banka to taxation vithout, ” 

I. 

: the Comont or the federal Con.gwar The only 

‘, provlaion or the redoral etatutoe vhioh authorlcer such taxetion la eeotion 5219 o 

f 

tho Revlsed Statutec of the United St&tee U.S. Camp. 

St. 1901, p, 3502), and that permitd ruah.tcuation w agalnat buch benka, ‘upon riml eetate 

Onlg. It authoyizes atato taxation or the 

*~ atoek of suoh banke aa a@net the wnom of 

such #took, btit not a$ agalnat the bar&m. In 

harmony Vith that rtstuto, the Le&islaturo of 

.,’ thi8 state has we full provlrrlon for the aaawm?nt and colleotlon of taxea,upon national 

,. 

“’ b&k stock from the ovnern of uuah rt.oQk, and . 

. 

has made no attempt to oom901 national banks to 

priy taxes on euah 9roportgr ‘~ Sayleo* Rev. Cl?. 

St. 1897, arts. 5079, 5079a, and 5080, Henoe 

I, 

,;:~ 

ne’ are of opinion that the bank vae under no 

legal obligation to render’and 9&y taxer on the 

proporty’ln question. 

cd by ntithmity. * 

Thoee visve are rrupportMiller V. First Ration81 

.Bmk, 46,0hio St. 424, 21’R.E. 8601 Blrat lot; 

Bank Y, Ffshor, 45 fan. 726, ,26 Pao. 482.’ 

It la our opinionthat under th6 lava of this State 

to a matlonal bank:,ir texablo cq&nat ,. 

loaal bank mcy not 

raonal ,prapertg bslonging~ to ouch a .Nat- t 

‘taxed by the Stats, %rther, &aver of 

. 

.I’ . a’. 

b .~. 
i&k in ‘a dat$onal bank may be taxed in the hand8 of the ’ 

rharoholder 8. This ha8 been the lav or thir .Stato rinoo the 

ourly Texae Suprome Court oat30 0r Uarrlsoa Y+’ Yinor, 46 Vex, 

15,~ mhs aowt rtatod au 3ollovar 

“It fr a& well nettled by the Supreme 

‘, court or the United Stattoe, by whose constru0~ 

,~’ ‘. tloa an aot of Congree8 thie oourt Is uri@aortionably bound,. that the rrhaiw of bankin5 a81 

roolatlons authorized by the abt of June 3, 

‘Y’ ,1864, ‘To provide a “national ourronc ” &or 

; ” In the hand8 of the ahareholdorr are I’ iable $6 

ta?ustIon by, tho Statoa with the lltitatlon8 

; c and on the oondltlono sot forth in tho forty-.‘, 

.’ ‘first soctloa of said sot, although the entlr@ 

a&pital of euah bank I8 Invested in national 1 

roourltloo, whloh are dealwed by theetatuto 

.. ( authoriaing thorn to be %xcmg 

* by ‘or ‘under 5tatoWg;horlty. 

The Ae8088or8, 

Comafo8loaor8, t 

., 5 

Wall.., 2 1;: 

j 

Natloaal Bmk v., 

Uoxmtoavoalth, O~Wall., 353. , . .,.I - 

. 

.‘, 

,, 

“, 

The next question that arl~sa fa whether 02 not tho 

mh&rer of- rtook ,la a National bank vhIah are taxed In the name8 

of the rhareholdore should bo aeaevsed at a value tioh iu meduood b+aueo or tho ,faot that. the National Bank own8 Federal 

, Rerervo rtook. Tho rule or lav In euoh a 0088 88 to United 

Water bonde owned by a Natloncrl bank vaa stated by ,th8 C,owt . 

or oltii A9 oala 

25 ‘8.: If.. 734. 

0r TQXW in the dam 0r Adair V* Robinson, .’ : 

Th question before the oourt la that QM@ YOI 

.1 

e ,./ 

rt@tad therola 80 rollowe: 

The ‘faoto are sot oontrovertod oontrovertod 

“and li &iy quo&ion quo&ion presented presented for ow de& de& 

#ion 18 the right of the ovnara of the rtock 

or the. bank to ronder the. awio for taxation taxation at 

: ‘.‘ftr aotual Y~~UO, lone the amount of the United 

&ate8 bond8 Andy the legal tender not08 owned, 

.’ b thr ba@c oa the I8t day ?r.+naary~ Aa ‘De ._ 

.1591:. . ..*y . 

. I ," : 

<, '. .* 

*. 

', 
,,~ 

. 

5 

I .~‘.,., .,. “” -“~. ‘*‘~:j’f’. 

‘, 

. ’ 

‘. 

( . . 

’ 

' The oourt'hald OII follwel 

I.4 . !l%crcs is ho decision of that oourt 

known to u; whloh tenda to sustain the content&on 

of eefondcnt II ln ,errorj but, on the contrary, la. 

filie oaffo of Vm Nlon v.~Aoa~~~~r, 3 lidll. 573;. 

:’ ,it~,ia eqmmily dooided by a majority of the 

, 

.. supreme cowt of. the, United Etatou, after thor- ‘, 

‘ough tuul e~hauotive ~dleouoeion of the question; :. 

,,, that it was not tho r&at of the ehareholdare .~. ’ 

‘.of .a national bank to hem deducted from the ~’ 

“‘-value of their sham@ of atook, when rendered 

to the state offioor for taxation, the drum of 

tione;r invested by the bank in United Etatgs ‘. 

: bonda. Nor 18 there anything in the deoieionr. 

of. the tu~rome, court of thla state, that Yo 

hare discovered, which coL-stonauoee tho rule 

,.’ for easeermont of chaws cf bauk stook vhlch 

,~’ ,,the defendants in error contend for, . .~ ,” 

In the case of Fimt E!%sional Zank of'C5.m.ioinui~t1, 

Chio, 0. Qutir, 246 FM. 163, the shareholders in a Rational 

bank’oontendsd that the value of the sharer of stock in said 

: bank must be reduced for etate ad valorem tax purpoaor beoawe’ 

the bank'r ovqorohip of lahtcrcs of rtock 4~ a Fedorsl Remrvo 

b&k. The oontontlon of the bank’s Wwoholderr’in that 08SO 

~wu” 88 t0110vr 8 

ii. 

: 

*The plal&iff oltiims that the provision8 ‘: 

. .of’riotion 5219, R.8,U.S. (Aot June 3, 1864, # 

d. 106 ( 41, 13 Stat, 111, aa amended Febrmarg .: 

,.lO, 1868 (15 Stat. 34, c. 7)), are so far ro- 

, 

.’ 

‘~ P 

ealed by oectlon 26 of the Federal Resorve AoC : 

Act, Dee. 23 15113, 0. ..6, 30 Stat. 25 (Omp. St. 

: i, 

1916,’ 1 gSo3j~), that the sharoholdora in the 

plaintiff be& aro oxenpt fron taxation by via’- 

tuo of rootion 7 of the last-nmod eat (Corsp, 

,, St i 1916 ! 979%) on ao much of ito capital : ,. 

8na‘ rurpiur a8 ia, invoated ir, rtook of the 

peder0.l ReseHs Bank. '4 telqlorary ul$lnotion~, 

: irruod tmeA'the bill Vai filed. " 

II ,. ..**, w 

:. 

, , .' 

:~ 
Honorabl* i. L. Croaler, page.14 

;: 

,’ 

‘1. . i P6r the subscription. thus made.” 

thd national bank booomor a 8-c fholder oc rtookholder In the Fedomil Reserve Dw, but may not. 

, +nsfer OP hypotheoato lte ahWeaj each of tiLti 

$a.of’the face value of $100. SubaeOtion 3 of . 

,‘, ‘, ~ ,@Otion’ 7 prorldeo that J 

. wVcdoral Roa’erve D&&a, inolud% the 

: capital atook and atipluo therein, and the ino&a dwivcd thorofrom, ah&l1 bo exmpt from 

~eeberal, state, end looal taxation, oxoopt tex- 

/ es ,upon red estate, 1” 

’ Ia tho above quoted portions of the First liatlonal :, 

Dank Y, Sh.wr oaao it may be soon. that Thor ehmeboldora in the 

Rational Dwk.vere oonteridlng that the provlnlon.ln the Federal Resews Act, vhioh providoa that tho Fodoml ReaOrvo; 

: .banklaoludhg tho oAplt+l stock and tho aurplw therein and 

,lncome dorived tharof’rom voro exempt from Stat0 taxation rOqkihwd tho State tw&q authorities to rcduoe t&o value of thr 

.aIqarea of atock.in the plalntlff~a National Bank boo&use ,aa%d 

~benk’ovncd eharoa of etook in a Federal Reserve Dank. l’he 

oourt @nevered the aontention and stated ae follova~ 

,. ’ . 

.“The CJX~llQtfOA ppoildod in .?ootiOa 7 dOOS 

‘not extend to national banks orgnnieed undo? 

the,lVational DanUng’Lan,’ I&ad Coagmsa Ant&d- ‘. 

od that their capital otoolr..ehould be relieved 

from taxation, it would have oaid 80~ 

,. *T& stock pkohaeed by the plaintiff ia. 

‘the ‘Pedoral Roaervi3 Da& irr but & nontaxable 

inveatmont of a psrt of its oapltal and aurplus. As acrid’ 5n Firlit Hat. Bank vw &bright, 

208 u. 8. 

,,‘L. zd. 614 

48, 553, 20 5up. Qt. 349, 350 (52 

J . . 

. 

’ 

.I 

,. n~The’lav does not oonaidez. the xkatuw Of 

,a b&k18 investment not texed in f$xing tho 

~~ ooluo of 

t 

ts atook. 

u.S; 669, 

Palnor V. Mal&ho~, 1% 

lo sug. Ct. 324, 33 Ii. Ed. 772). ’ ,.. 

:: 
‘%hatever value the ohares lsaucd by the 

:., ,’ ppbfatlff .natiorml benk po~oem, they are :to 

., that extont tax&bU in the hand8 of their own- 

,.. em .a.nd holdera. Rosonblatt v. Johnrton, 104 Ur. 

I’ 8. 462, 26 L. Ed. 832~ my, oto., of San Franoirob, Y. Croaker-Xoolworth Nnt. Bank (0.0,) 

.* 92 Fed, 273. The oourte have repeatedly ruled’ 

” ‘, .that., IA Sixbig. ‘the value of the shnros OS 

stock of natlonal bank8 for .tfWng purpof~o8, ” 

;, the value due ,t3 the bank’s olmershlp or non-‘, 

taxable United Btates~bonda as a part of ltr 

..“‘. aaaets must be lnoludod. se, for inntanoe, 

Cleveland Trurt Co. v. L!indcr, 184 0.9.. 111, 

' ‘22 8up. Ct. 394 46 L. Ed, 4%~ Xa or o.~Anwi~' ~"?: 

oan Nat. Bank, i5g Pod. 396, 401, 86 C .C.A. 3?b;c ;,, : : 

(C.0.A. 6)~ Van Allen,v. Aeaeseorr, 3 Well. e” 

_ 

2 

73, 18 L. Ed, 229 

Well. at pago 25 6 , 

Peoplo ve Comlsrionera, ~.. ’ ” *. 

18 Lt. Ed. 3441 Nat, Bank 

Y. Comonvealth, g Wall* at p&8&e 359, 19 II. Et& 

.,7Olj Born0 Cavings Bank Ye De* Moines, 205 lJ.8, 

’ .at pwoe 528, 513, 27 Bupr. Otr 571, 51 Lr Ed.. 

.,’ ,901. .Tho ~amo rulo~ appllea to nontaxable stook 

e ;y tho plaintiff in tho Fsafwai Roaorvo 

. 

The cotit denled the oodtentioa of tho ~rhareholdorr 

ls tWXiation&l bon4 and held that the mm rulip applied aa $0 

.rtook ovned bu the,Natlonal bank in a Federal Roeerve bank 

‘&a har beon p:oviouely announoed CtQpma vhere the NatlOn8l 

bank ouaed United .Stator bond8 ~8 p8rt pi it8 &88et8r 

ihe Ceoult Court or Appeale’ affirmed the de0bi081: 

of the ‘Matriot Court aud utsted ~a Sollow; 

“Ne are aatiafled, not only with tho oor- 1~ 

reotners OS this oonoluaion; but with the peak 

aonlng of the opinion on vhloh the conoluaio~ 

,,’ 

18 baaed, and 8ro oontont to affirm the juds- .~ ‘, ., 

ment upon that opinion; Uo think its oloar that . . 

Oongreso ihtendcd to place a r.mtlonal bank@ 8 

holdingr OS Federal Reeerve Bank rtock ugoa pl+ ‘. 

oieel the, uame beair ar its’holdingr OS governmeat. Ii onde, eo r8p ae exemption *iron taxation 
. : 

44 

~o&rablo it: L. Cro&r, pwe 16 ._ * 

,. " 

of ihares of natlonel bank #took held by 

“‘,atookholdera therein*” 

You are therefore’ advised that in the opinion of 

thla deiartment, the value of ahyea OS atook owned by atookholdera in a National bank may not be reduood beoauao of the 

I fiwt~thot the Nationd bank own8 aha??oa of atook in a Pxloral 

Reaewo bank. 

We trust that the f6regoing fulli tfnayerr youc la- 

‘q&y O?I $hla ptter, . 

Your8 very truly