The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1885-04-22
SuPrsne Court OF the Hawaiian Islands--
In Banoo. April Term 1855

Peterson for Defendant.
Honolulu, April 3ri, 1885.
Supreme Court Of the Hawaiian I.land.--
In Banoo April Term 1855
CASTLE s. Cook VS.. G. H. LUCE, TAX COL
LEcToR or HoSoLuLu.
B,ror, Judd C.. HeCTRs ), Is.ii5 ;. D,iaion
ofh, Court by JTdd CO.
The Plaintiffs, as agents of the New Eug-
land Mutual Life Insurance Company, claim
Ia be refunded taxes paid under protest for
1854, being $6s.39, a tax Of one per cent.
upon S6s3e.00, amount Of premiums received
during the year by the said Insurance Com
pauy upon policies issued previous to the Isl
day Of July lss3.
The Statute, by the authority Of which the
tax in question was levied, is Section IL Of
the Taxation Act of lss2 Compiled Law p.
l2O.) 1t reads az follows:
"All fire, marine and life insurance COM
''panies carrying on business in this Kingdom
shall pay for and in respect of every one
hundred dollars received by such companies
respectively for premiums on policies issued
''by such companies during the year proceed
ling the assessment, the sum of Que dollar,
| auu huCu COMPANIES HAall HNt Tvs tAdIEtN
with any other taxes or duties under this
"Act."
Itis commended OIL behalf Of the plaintiffs
that by the letter Of the statute the annual
premiums received by insurance companies
ATE not taxable. that the law authorize the
taxation only Of amounts received for pre-
minus on policies issued by the company
during the year ending the goth June, 1881.
On behalf Of the defendant the Attorney
| General contends that il was the intention Of
the Legislature to tax insurance companies on
tleiE annual receipts that thus they NIGH,
bear their proper share Of the burden Of tax
Stinn; that Section 81 Of the same Act r.
quiriHg agents of Insurance Companies L.
deliver To the Assessor "a return showing the
amount received for premiums during the year
preceding" un the said first day Of July fur
Their indicates this intention ut the Legislature.
Section IS provides that upon the failure to
make returns the Assessor mas aake such as
sessmeHt according to The best information
| within his reach and the same shall be ctn-
elusive.
By THE COURT.
"The underlying principal Of all coustruc-
''tiOn is that which seeks the intent Of the
Legislature in tue words employed to ex-
press it. Beyond the words we are not to
''look whore the meaning is plain aud iu-
'!telligible. II the law is plain and unlmbig-
''uOus, the Legislature aust 10 intended to
"mean what has been plainly expressed and
nothing remains but 10 give the intent effect.
Cooley on Taxation, =. los, and cases there
cited.
Section Of the Civil Code on the cuustruc-
ton of laws, prescribes that "the words Of
"a law are generally to be undertood in their
/ Lv, Il =.
We find tic law authorizing the taxation Of
insurance companies (sec. II of the Act of
1852 above recited) to be plain and inlelligi-
bic. 1t declares that insurance companies
whether FIRE, marine or life, carrying on bust
ness in this Kingdom, shall pay tax of one
dollar OIL every one hundred dollars received
by such companies "f0r premiums on policies
issued by such companies during he ycU' pre-
ceiiJiJ The assessment"
That is TO say, premiums received on policies
issued during the year preceding the assess
ment are taxable.
The general or popular use or meaning"
Of the phrase in question, land this by Section
8 above referred to, is the general rule of con-
stuctionl would be that it applied to policies
newly issued during the year. Thus, il an
insurance agent, speaking OF his business
should say that he had issued une hundred
| policies during the year no one would be eX
peCted TO understand that one hundred was
| the total number of outstanding policies issued
during several previous years up to that lime,
but he would he understood to declare that
such was the ag,uHnI at new business dnnU,
| No oIhgr construction IL admissible. To
enable the collector TO charge insurance COM
panies with tax ON all premiums rsccircti
during the year would require the suppress
| sion OF tine words 'Un policies issued by such
COMPANIES during the year. These wur1s
limit the premiums which are taxable 10 thuSe
| collected on policies issued during the year
aud must have some effect. But il is urged
that this construction would deprive tue Gov
eminent Of the tax upon the annual receipts
Of life insurance companies for premiums, for
these companies do not issue policies to their
insured annually, their practice being 10 issue
policy when the risk is taken which is kept
alive by the payment Of annual premiums IN
al tue event happens which requires the pay
ment Of the amount insured in the policy.
Certainly there exists no good reason why
life insurance companies should be thus ex-
empted, but this is matter for the legis-
lature TO cure. The argument is made that
the payment OF the annual premiums is
| equivalent TO a new contract Of insurance, for
it keeps alive what would otherwise be a
dead policy. The answer to this is that the
law imposing the tax says plainly that pre-
miums only on policies issued during the year
are taxable and it does not say ON policies
kept alive during tue year by the performance
Of the condition precedent.
The Implication of Section 81 is that the
tax shall be paid un 1.-THE amount received f0T
premiums" gu all policies during the year,
else why is it required to be returned. 1t is
also reasonable to consider that the annual
tax should be paid on the annual income Of
premiums, rather than that the premium Of 4
policy should be taxed only the first year and
thereafter lie exempt. But. Qaod roirii MOI,
| DIRT What was intended was not expressed
The different sections may not he consistent
with each other. 1t is 10y Sec. IL that the tax
is imposed. Can an additional tax be imposed
by the section which provides for tue return?
| We think not
We think that revenue laws are to be con
sirued strictly. Says Coulry, -, strict COLI
strucliUn in such case is reasonable because
presumptively the legislature has given in
plain terms all the power it has intended
should be exercised" Couley, Taxation,
p. 200.
Dwarris on Statutes says, at is well
settled rule Of law that every charge upon the
subject must be imposed by clear and IN
ambiguous language. Acts Of Parliament
which impose duty upon the public will be
critically construed with reference To the
particular language in which they arc ex-
pressed. When there is any ambiguity found,
the construction must be in favor of the pub
lie; because it is general rule, that when the
public are to be charged with burden, the
intention of the Legislature to impose the
burden must be explicitly and distinctly
shown" Potters' Dwarris p. 2jj
This view is abundantly supported; see
Wroughton vs.. Turtle IL NJ. & W. SOL: Mar
| quis Of Chsndos We. Commissioners Island
Revenue 6 EIch. i6i Sevall VS.. Jones Pick.
n2.
We are Of the opinion that the tax in qucs-
ton levied was not authorized by the Statute.
and so or'ler Judgment for the plaintiffs.
f. Preston for plaintiff; Attorney General
Seumann for defendants.
Honolulu, April Q, ls5j.
|
The Latest In Cane
THE styles in walking canes are constantly
changing" said q prominent dealer in i'm
ported canes on Broadway to a reporter for the
Nail and cypress. 'The most popular and
stylish cane is now made of hazelwoud. with