The times., 1899-03-25
NOT UNDER THE LAW.
Tax Certificates Exempt From In
ternaI Revenue Taxation.


An opinion was handed down by the
| Court of Appeals yesterday in the case of
, the United States on the relation of NAL
, colin Hufty, appellant, against Matthew
| Trimbie, assessor of the District of Co!uin-
bia, involving the placing of war revenue
stamps on tax certificates. The decision is
of interest to every property owner and
| taxpayer in the District, and strengthens
the contention OF the District Comm ssion-
ers that ii is not necessary that war reve-
nue. stamps be affixed to tax certificates.
The judgment of the lower court was re-
versed and the case remanded with direc-
tions to issue writ of mandamus. The
opinion was handed down by Justice
Shepard.
! On November 16 last Hufty, who had sold
lot in square 120, paid to the District AS
SCISSOR the fee required by law and demand
ed certified statement of the taxes due
on the property, according to the law of
May IS, 1892. The fee was accepted and a
statement made out, but the Assessor re-
fused to deliver it until Mr.. Hufty affixed
a ten-cent war revenue stamp. The Com
missioners originally maintained that the
war revenue stamps should not be aifxed,
and as the Treasury officials took differ
ent view of the matter considerable oorre-
| spondence passed between the District
Building and the Treasury Department be-
| fore the Commissioners finally backed
down and directed the Assessor to have the
war revenue stamps affixed as required by
| the Treasury officials.
II was maintained by the Treasury that
the certificates were issued for the sole
benefit of those who apply for them. The
opinion of Justice Shepard does not accede
to this proposition. 1t maintains that the
certificates may facilitate the business OF
the District in the collection Of back taxes
and that they do furnish some revenue, for
the report of the Auditor for the year end
ing June 80 last shows credit of 81 456. sc
to their account.
The opinion then states that the view OF
the court is that it is unimportant whether
| or not the certificate was issued for the
sole benefit of Hufty. 1t says that when
| one is under legal duty by contract or
is required by law to execute and delivef
a taxable instrument TO another. who
alone may be intrusted in the use to be
made of it when delivered the instrument
must be stamped at or before delivery.
1t is not complete legal instrument until
| the stamp has been affixed and cancelled
| by the maker. Ii is also maintained that
| the one who issues IL or causes il TO be
| issued, without the necessary stamp is
| alone guilty of the offence declared in
| the seventh section OF the war revenue act
of 1885,
| The opinion of the Court OF Appeals con-
cludes with the following statement
THE fact that the issuance of the GER
| tificate in this case is commanded by law
upon the payment of the required fee, and
| is in some measure productive OF revenue
to the corporation, is enough, We think.
to bring it under the exemption. We think
it unnecessary for the purposes of this case
| to attempt to draw the line of distinction
| hatx t1.. nefc nf mn mi tri ma
corporation that may and may not be in
the exercise of the ordinary governmental
| taxing, and municipal capacity.
Our conclusion is that no stamp is re-
| quired to be affixed to the certificate, and
that it is the duty of the respondent to
deliver it to the relator. 1t follows that
| the judgment must be reversed and the
| cause remanded with directions to Issue
the writ of mandamus as prayed for in the
.relator's petition"