The Big Stone Gap post. [volume] (Big Stone Gap, Wise County, Va.) 1892-1928, 1899-02-16
A TAX on CAPITAL.
Supreme CourtSaysMerchants
Need Not Pay 1t.

The Supreme Court OF Appeal
adjourned Thursday to March 7th
The court has heard argument il
f,rty.seven cases on the argumen
docket during the term just closed
leaving th%irty-two cases on TIT
docket. There will be sever Com.
monwealth cases and three privileged
cases, making a total of forty-twC
cases 20 be heard at the March term
One very important case decided
was that OF the Board of Supervisors
of Montgomery county VS.. w. +.
Tallant. The appellee is a merchant
His invested capital was assessed by
the Commissioner Of the Revenue OF
Montgomery county. He resisted
payment on the ground that such
taxation was illegal in view Of his
having paid a license tax as a mer-
chant. The question to be decided
Was, Does the State assess with tax
es the capital employed by a mer-
chant in his business? The opinion,
which is exhaustive and able, holds
that he does not. Judge Harrison
prepared it. Judges Rieley and
Buchanan dlssented.
The opinion holds that the Ian
guago of the statute requiring mer-
chants to pay license makes it per-
fectly clear that the law does not
contemplate the taxation of their in
vested capital; indeed, the words in
the section of the Code referred to
makes it clear it should not be so as
sessed. declaring 1.-THE sums imposed
under and by virture Of this section
shall be in lieu of all taxes, for
State purposes, on the capital actu-
ally employed by said merchant or
mercantile firm in said business"
TO make it still clearer and intent,
the same section provides what shall
be construed as capital, and says:
"All other property held by such
merchant or firm shall be listed and
taxed as other property" again ex-
Guiding the idea that the capital en-
ployed by the merchant shall be as
sessed for taxation.
The opinion states that prior to
1874 the capital employed by mer-
chants in their business vas assess
ed for taxation, but in that year an
act was passed containing the same
provisions found in the present act,
providing for a license instead of as
sessment of capital. The constitu-
Lionality of the act was assailed, but
The Supreme Court held that the
Legislature had the right to determ-
ne whether the business of the mer-
liant could be reached by the al va
orem system or not, and to adopt
he policy Of requiring a license in its
stead.
The appellant relied, in part, at
east, upon Article ", section |, OF
he State Constitution, which de-
.lares that all taxes shall be uniform,
md that all real and personal prop {,
rty shall be taxed. The provision !
f the Code that ole (the Commits c
.ionerl shall ascertain form each per- '
on in his district. city or town, the
mount OF capital invested, used, or !
mployed in any trade or business,
.ot otherwise taxed" was also relied =,
n by the board. The opinion adj Ii
ats that read by itself this clause Ii
could appear to support the conten-
ion of the board, but holds that, 7
onstrued with other provisions of F
license law quoted, it was clearly 3
OF the duty Of the Commissioner to
ssess the capital for State purposes, :,
nd consequently not for county pur- h
oses. The Legislature has express c.
RETAINED from taxing such capital b
II State purposes, and has not au- y
lOrized its taxation for county pur-
oses.-RichmOad Dispitch. :;