The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-11-07
SOME PUBLIC QUESTIONS
ARE FINALLY DECIDED
Counties Cannot Go Behind Charters OF incor-
porations to Collect Income Iaxes---sheriff
Has Free Hand in Appointments.

A unanimous opinion of the Supreme
Court. written by Chief Justice Frear,
upsets the claim of the county of
Kauai to the income taxes of planta-
tions situated in that county but hav-
ing their stated place of business IN
Honolulu, County of Oahu. j. D. Will
lard. County ATTORNEY of Kauai, D. H.
Case and Smith & Lewis appeared for
petitioners, and NJ T. Prosser, Deputy
Attorney General for respondents;
Jas L. Holt, Tax Assessor of first divl-
sion, and j. K. Farley, Tax Assessor
of fourth division. The law is laid
down in the syllabus thus:
81 Under the income tax law which
requires each corporation to make re-
turn in its taxation division and also
all persons and corporations to make
their returns in the taxation divisions
in which they reside, locate or do bust
ness, corporations as well as persons
should in general make their returns in
the division in which they do business,
if they reside without the Territory;
not in the division in which their prop
erty is situated, if that is a different
division.
''The residence of Hawaiian cor
poration is necessarily in the Territory
of Hawaii-the place of its creation.
AS between different taxation divisions
within the Territory, it's residence is
in that in which it holds it's stock
holders and directors meetings, keeps
its stock books directs the manage
ment of it's business, conducts it's gen.
eral financial transactions and per-
forms its corporate functions, especial
ly if the place of its principal office IS
declared by it's charter or articles to
be in that division; not in that in which
most of it's property is situated and in
which it conducts most of it's business
so far as actual production is con-
cerned and keeps most of its books of
original entry, if that is a different
division. The mere fact that it's direc-
tors meetings also are held in the lat
ter division is not sufficient to make
that its residence; nor is the fact that
most of it's stock is owned by one per-
son who resides in the latter division |
and manages the property much |
as he pleases sufficient. If it's |
meetings are held and it's general |
corporate functions performed without |
the Territory and it's charter does not |
designate its principal office, the latter |
division is its place of JaXation-as |
being either it's residence or it's place
of business in the Territory.
There being no legal duty on the
part of the assessor of one division to
send tax returns filed with him to the
assessor of another division where SIM
liar returns should have been filed, |
mandamus to compel him to do so is :
denied.
Mandamus to compel the assessor
of the division in which corporation
should have made it's return, to assess
and collect its income tax, is denied,
it appearing that it had no assessable
income during the year in question.
When statute requires one-half
of the income taxes collected by the
Territory to be turned over to the
county in which they are collected, and
the assessors of two taxation divisions.
covering two counties respectively, act
on the theory that certain corporations
should be assessed in one of those divi-
sions, and mandamus is brought to
compel the assessor of the other divi-
sion to make such assessments, the
county in the first division is not
necessary party"