The Hawaiian gazette., 1878-02-27

These words wese used IN a case exactly simi-
lar b. that which We have under coatcmpla-
gien and under = statute very similar.
In the case Of Smith vs., The Town of I've
ter ~ \, n, SIS. Perley, c, ], uses the fol-
lewfae languages The whole prNperiy eta
sailrVad belongs b. the Stockholders, who own
the Rad in sAaress and whatever is paid by
the eosporatSoa is. &c COURSE. paid cut es the
property thus held in shares. and Is dedacteS
hOm the property " income 81 the shaSehcld-
ers, The tax 81 the corporation Is, thereture.
in substance, a tax On the shares and On the
shareholders, The property Of the rcad con-
sistS al the stock, AND tax On the road ~ IN
substance tax On the stock.
Aud again in SAviass Bank VS.. Nashua 90
y, II. SaS, IL is said, cit is fundamental
principle in taxation that the same property
shall rct he subject 10 a double tax. payable
ey the same party either directly OF indireetly.
and where il is once decided that any kind or
class ef preperty is liable 10 be taxed under
enc provision u the statutes !; has been held
10 follow as legal conclusion that The legis-
lasare could not have intended the same pro
perty should be subject to another tax. though
theye may he general cTrers in the law, which
would seem 10 imply that it was 10 be taxed
= second time"
We have said above that the law simply
SAYS that the stock in corporations is - be tax
ea and does nes SAY whether il is ~ be taxed
to the corporation or to the Shareholders them
selves, New an exact fal6llment Of the law
would he in this case. Tor the Maui Assessors
and Collector to do Just as they have done
and for the Oahu Assessors and Collector to
call urOn the officers here and require them 10
i list the property ct the corporation which he
would DO by taking into consideration all The
items which i; had been assessed at Maui and
make a return Of all the other taxable assets
I Of the corporation. thus the whole stock et the
{ corporation would be listed. assessed and
I taxes paid upon it, AMI this having been done,
I the whole law is completely fulfilled in letter
and spirit, and the shareholders may not be
assessed again.
The Demurrer is, therefore, overruled. The
I Attorney General may have leave To answer
I If there is anything further u urge.
[ The Attorney General; have nothing
/ farther.
The Court: Let Judgment be entered Tor the
Z Plaintiffs Ss6a,S0 without interest and with
out Costs.
Honolulu, February 9th, ISIS.
Judd J.
/ Ssree with the learned Chief Justice thai
the demurrer should be overruled. The plain
tiff can recover the taxes paid by him ON thC
made to appeat that the tax has been paid OF
the capital Of the corporation invested il
lands, machinery, live stock and the apPli-
ances requisite for the production Of cane ant
the manufacture OF sugar. This corporation
was formed for agricultural and manufacture
ing purposes. Its charter eoaters no mono
poly. and the corporation has no special pFi-
vileges OF franchises. The grant Of TIN:
charter created no new money value IN itself
distinct from the capital invested in the tangi.
bic property held under the charter.
The incidental advantages possessed by al
holders Of Incorporated property, Of immunity
from personal liability, and the facility will
which such property can be transferred. doe
not give the shAres, into which the capital L
divided, separate taxable value
Tue shares we are considering derive thei
only value from the amount and productive
ness Of the property of which they are part
As this property has been already taxed, &
tax the sharers would be to duplicate taxation
Of the same property, and to the same person
Indirectly. for the shareholder is a member O
the corporation and has 10 bear his proportion
Of its expenses, of which the tax already PAL,
on the property Of the corporation is one.
The recent case of $. E. Bishop VS.. the Ia
Assessor for Honolulu has not the binding ef
feet of precedent upon this case at bar, 70
the reason that the Court could not in tn
former case give Judgment as to which assess
ment was Illegal, the one made upon the cor
poE..tion for the property held by it, or tha
made upon the shareholder for the share he'll
by him, and tile Court had not the power I
elect upon which assessment the tax shout
be collected Neither section of the law is Q
itself Unconstitutional, and it was only whe
the taxes upon both assessments had bee
paid that this question of double taxatio
could properly arise. Nor ought that case
my opinioa to carry authority as an opinion {
the Judges submitted at the request of til
Cabinet, for the questions involved were nd
such as are contemplated by Article 20 Of til
Constitution
Honolulu, February 9Th, 1878.