The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1877-08-22
OpininiOl Of the Attorney General.
An Insurance and Banking Com.
pany Liable TO "a Tax ON Both
Privileges.
ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE,
JACKSON, August IL, 1877.

JACKSON, August II, 1877. !
Hon w. II. GIBBS, Auditor Public Acc'ts:
SIR: Yours of this date inclosing COM
munication of B. d. Cheneworth, Esq, and
also brief of Messrs. Orr, Meek q Sims, At
torneyS for the " Columbus Insurance and
Banking Company" presenting the ques-
ton whether or not the Company is liable
| for the privilege tax imposed by the Act OF
| 1873, as Bankers, and also, the privilege tax
| imposed by the same Act, upon Insurance
Conn anies. 1t seems that the charter of
| Incorporation was granted as early as 1882.
| lt expressly authorizes the Company to do
| business in the two functions, or in the
| double capacity OF Banking and Insurance,
| but it does not exempt the Company, in any
/ way from taxation.
| The Constitution of this State, CART. y,
| See 49, provides as follows, to wit;
The property OF all corporations tor pc
| = cuniary profits, shall be subject TO taxa
| 4" ton, the same as that OF individuals"
So far as the lax is concerned, the cor
/ pOration stands. in relation TO the State, and
! to the tax collector, the same as an ihdivid-
| ual, and it would hardly be contended that
an individual who carries on two kinds or
| branches of business, both requiring the
| payment of a privilege tax, could pay one,
| and by reason of such payment be exempt
| from the privilege tax on the other; if so, it
/ would be An easy matter to combine two
| branches of business, and thus defeat the
| revenue OF the State. The Act of March /,
| 1878, (Pamphlet p. 81 provides for privi-
| lege tax as follows: On each Home In
| " Surance Company $1,000" page Z.
| . On each bank in city or town of over 1000
inhabitants, $1,000" The corporation is now
| exercising both functions, has paid one tax
| OF $1,000. Is it now liable for the other
| Our Supreme Court has decided that the
1 privilege tax is constitutional, and does not
! interfere with, or in any way impair vested
rights. Stewart V. Potts, - Miss, 749.
| Whatever rights may invest, by legisla-
| ton or otherwise. an the absence OF express
/ y SuCh
| legislative power OF taxation, Is an inherent
| power, not conferred by the Constitution,
! and is discretionary power, except so far
as the Constitutions may control 1t by llmi-
| tations and restrictions. Cooley on taxa
| ZION, PIP. IS, Al, 50. Penn. 352-363; 30 Mich.
| 202-2l2
| In the case under consideration, is the tax
| duplicate? 1t is the general policy OF the
law to avoid duplicate taxation, yet where
the meaning of the statute Is clear, the court
cannot pronounce them invalid because they
| admit OF duplicate taxation. 60 Pew ST.,
| 1877; Cooley on taxation, 1854.
1t is true, says Judge Cooley, that con-
struction of the law is not TO be adopted
that would subject the same property to be
| twice charged for the same tax. unless II
was required by the express words of the
statute, or By necessary implication, and he
cites, 10 Mass. 5l4; II Mass. 4l6; Met. lS9
and Gill. 231 and others.
Stock in trade may be taxed to the owner
while he may be indebted for it to many
| persons who may be taxed for those debts,
or the money loaned to purchase it. Rea
estate NAV be taxed to the mortgagor in
| possession while the mortgagee is taxed for
| the money secured BY the mortgage. Coo
/ lev on Taxation, I6l.
| tits not conclusive against a tax when we
show that it reaches twice the same property
for the same purpose, because it IS said thai
| the power TO tax twice, is as ample as TO tar
once. and this may have been intended ano
in many instances is admissible, Cooley or
Taxation 1853; 80 Penn. ST. 232; 30 Conn., z
The real or personal property OF cor
| poration may be taxed, although it pays
tax on the stock which purchased It, Il
Penn ST, 424-43l, 80 Id. 1872; ID. SO l.
The Columbus Banking and Insurance
Company is acting in double capacity
and under charter granting douple priv
ilege: That of Banking and that OF Insur
ance. If there were two charters, one 10
each function, with the same incorporators
it would hardly be cOntended that elthe
was exempt. Nor can it alter the case WheI
we fiud two privileges combined in one
charter, bearing In mind, that as to the tax
! alton the Corporation bears the same rela
lation to the State as an individual, and ha
no more advantage, lin the absence of al
} exemption in ths charter. It Is not claimet
T that the franchise Is exempt but it is in
sisted that ft is twice taxed. ] thi~
!, Is franchise aran.-..Ig power to do tw
9 things, exercise two privileges, both q
which are taxable, and it Is immateris
Waetner the cnarser was granted, prior o
subsequent TO the Act imposing the privi
Q lege tax.
!. Although the question presented. is no
5 free from 0oubt, yet upon . somewhat ex
D tended examination, think the Com pam
2 Is liable 70 pay tax on both privileges, on
: as Bankers, and the other as Insurers, /
: order 70 exercise both functions.
e.. Il. HARRIS,
Attorney General.