The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-06-05
Taxation OF Bankers and Brokers.

IMPORTANT POINT UNDER THE REVENUE LAW-AP-
PLICATIoN FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES COLLECTORS AND ASSESSORS.
Clark Dodge d Co. VS.. Sheridan shook and Sylvester
restrain collectors and assessors OF Internal revenue
from collecting and assessing es against BANKERS for
appeared for plaintiffs and said that the plaDts were
Section Of the Internal Re O act fGe %
June 80 1854 and are not licensed as brokers' and CON
sSG section to receive stocks Tor sa and lend and ad
stocks and that carries with the right sell
Ihey lend and advance on such securities,
and in such cases sell to reimburse Themselves They
do negotiate purchases of such securities
do of the business which brokers are by the nnh
Go Mo%ion was mace here b coSpSe to cOntn@e
preliminary Injunction restraining the assessment OF
that bankers are not doing business as brokers when
money securities aud sell to reimburse them
selves when they receive orders to purchase securities
therefor with their own money and on there
OF nom payment se meSe to themseyes
under abv circumstances the banner Is not taxable in
account: % ''.o 90. - 49, m ~ 's '"I
as chsrssa S9 the the nO
defendants to assert and enforce the claims Of the
indeed conrary law only evidence S1 q such
e % e or e psS a q the
preme Court in the case the United States Harvey
tu ed as test action and or the purpose Of determn
ing the gse esti9n herein and thereby presented" In
states in the present claim he should not undera to
prove the contrary DV the record IN that case.
Tine matter then in controversy submitted to the
court upon an agreed case containing certain
these emissions are made for the sole purpose SUBJ
DatT n % SS oeS are IN % e affect
indicate that the action was not instituted as test
prescribed the ninety ninth section Of the act soro,
in their own tight and upon their a own aGcCpnt It
was whether licensed bankers by dea ing in securities
on tner own account were subjected to the
liabilities OF bankers dealing as brokers under the nineIy
The supreme Court decided that they were not, ON
the ground that Congress, in amending the ninth para
graph ofsection seventy nine the act Of 1854 which
otber sec urtes the words fer tSemseves 3 @OroS os
others" did not intend to change the definition
sold his own stock was brokers so that in order to
business as brokers under the ninety ninth Section
mast appear hat he negotiated sales for others we
What the nature and extent OF the liability OF the
banker would be IN such case the court did not pass
decision on the fac that Fisk q Hatch selling their
brokers' II is claimed BY the defendants that the Iact
OF dealing as brokers which was eliminated from the
psinants BILL in spite Of the absurd sta ie@en of the
everything which pTecedes it In the NTH article they
acknowledge that they have negotiated purchases and
article they ackSOwedge that they purchased SOCKS
etc, "tor and account Of divers parties and which,
receiving the prices and charges and commissions
were transferred and de ivered to such parties
arises under and is to be determined by the provisions
oil the internal Revenue That act provides that
certain occupations shall not be carried on without
re to bankers, and the ninth TO brokers In
pairing the business described in the latter ause with
the three classes banking business mentioned
in toe former II will be found that they wereland in
that who not being banker negOates purchases
for others to be termed broker and banker Is not
permitted to negotiate suc purchases Tae complain
ants admit that they negotiate purchases stocks
for others any distinction be raised between
that and the negotiating purchases for others as mem
toned In The statute was bey Ond hl comprehension
He regarded therefore as estab ished that the
planants acted In the premises as bankers, dealing
decision the Supreme Court in the case OF Fisk q
Batch" 1t appeared from the thirteenth article of the
bill that the cOmDlanans insist that they are not taxa
BILE OF the transactions mentioned in the bill The
decision referred 10 is tho broad ground that It
| banker broker, otherwise, everybody is exempt
who deals tor himself and not for hers But the very
moment he engages In SO dealing or Others he brings
himse within the definition Of broker, as laid down
by said ninth clause o. the Dty ninth section and
licensed and taxed as broker, With the single
exception that licensed baDne need not take out the
additional license as 6roker but the ninety ninth sec
| tiOn. which fixes the abi v OF brokers, particularly
mentioned along with broker the case Of bankers doing
business brokers and subj citing then 10 the liability
Of brokers In Its fullest extent in reference TO taxation
therefore supposable that the law Intended to let you
choose in what capacity you sha perform such acts,
and by merely calling yourselves bankers, eYade La
bllty TO which every oti er person Is subject The de-
the amendment was Intended to the opinion Of the
Court remedy transparent evil is IL TO be presumed
that that evil was less TRANSPARENT to the or
Court because coaked by the plea OF banker He SUD
mitted that both upon reason and authorV ne nOuoh
| MT w NJ EVarts followed in an argument on behalf
Ofhe plaintiffs and spoke al some length case stil on
| ~ y Herald.