Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-02-21

Supreme Court of Appeals Of Virginia
February 1. 1900.
THE CAPITAL STOCK &C., OF A
CORPORATION MAY BE TAXED
AND ALSO IT'S SHARES IN THE
HANDS OF THE HOLDERS.
WHAT BONDS SC. SHOULD BE
LISTED FOR TAXATION AND
WHAT NOT.
The points decided appear from the
opinion OF the court.
The court says.
Inat corporation is a legal entity
wnoiiy distinct from it's stockholders.
ana that the capital stock of the COM
pany, Its franchises. capital and asseste
may be taxed and u tax also laid upon
the shares OF stock In the hands of the
Individual holders, is established by
numerous decisions and is, we believe
uncontroverted.
me contention Of plaintiffs in error
is that the shares Of stock sought to be
taxed in their hands do constitute, in
the Jennings case, part of the capital,
MS deferred in the act, of a business
done out Of the State. and, In Aliens
case, are part of the capital of q
domestic corporation, and that they are
relieved from the burden of taxation
by force OF the exceptions contained
In the statute itself.
We do not think this proposition can
be maintained. The list (says the
statute) shall include. among other
things. certificates Of stock In any
Incorporated company, bonds of In
dividuals and claims, however evidence
ed, during or coming to such person.
whether due or not from debtors resid-
Ing out Of or within the State or Coun.
W. Language could not be more
explicit and leaves no room for con-
struction as to the duty of the Com
missioner with respect to the shares of
stock In question. He was obliged nv
the letter of the law to list them unless
they could be brought within the ope-
ration of some one OF the exceptions
set forth In the statute. There Is no
claim that there was to be any deduc-
ton on account of what might be due
to others as principal debtor, but 1t is
asserted with conviction, and maintain
cd most ingeniously, that the stock in
question is demand or claim which
constitutes a part OF the capital, as
defined In the act, of a business done
out of the State in the one case, and
III the other Is part of the capital
used by the manufacturer in his bust
ness. The tax, of course, Is laid upon
bonds. demands, and claims due to the
person whose property is being listed.
ana the Commissioner is in addition
required to list certificates of stock
held by him insany Incorporated COM
pany, wherever situated and whether
taxed elsewhere or not; at least the
language is 80 broad and comprehen-
sivc as necessarily to embrace all such
companies, and there is no exception
In the statutes which In any manner
confines its operation. The "bonds,
demands or claims" which constitute
part of the capital OF the company
are those due to the company, and they.
If taxed as part Of the capital, are re-
lieved from further taxation, because
that would be double and therefore
unjust taxation but the shares of stock
held by the Individual stocltholder, as
was said at the outset Of this opinion,
Is something wholly distinct from the
capital OF the company, though 1t is
true that oil the shares taken together
constitute the company and represent
Its franchises. capital and property.
We are Of the opinion that the shares
of stock held by Jennings constitute
no part of the capital of business
done out of the State; and, for like
reasons. the shares held by Allen are
no part of 'the capital used by any
merchant or manufacturer" in his bust
ness: therefore. plaintiffs in error are
not within the benefit of any exception
exemption mentioned statute,
and the Judgment in each case must be
affirmed. Affirmed.