The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-07-04
TO PAY COUNTY TAX
CAREER DELIVERS FLOW TO PIC-
 TURF ENLARGERs,
Holds that When Frames are soua n, Delivery, the Sale is Not Matter
 of Interstate COm-

An opinion rendered yesterday by Attorney-General A. M. Garber strikes
 heavy blow at the picture enIargine | companies which send their agents throughout the State. The Attorney General holds that under the new reve-
 nue code, the company must pay a
 license tax of $25 fin each county in which the agents travel, if frames are | sold and delivered.
 This means radical change in the business of those concerns which travel | agents in every section of Alabama 1 They have heretofore been free of the | county tax and discharged all seeming obligations when they had paid the | State tax. The companies have stood on the proposition that they were ope- rating under the Interstate Commerce | laws, and as consequence were cx- cused from the payment of a special county tax. Colonel Garber takes cog I nizance of this position and combats 1t in his opinion.
 The opinion was rendered in response to an inquiry from Auditor W. W. Brandon.
 The opinion is, however, a bit in- dihnite in its future bearing upon the business of the portrait companies be- cause the Attorney General did not have in hand an exact and definite statement of facts from which to draw his conclusions in the light of law. The Attorney General. however. defi- nitely sets out when the companies can operate under the interstate law, and when they are not under the inter- state commerce law, and, therefore, subject to license tax from the county.
 The method of business which sub jects them to a county license Is thus described by the Attorney General:
 But the practice of this company, and. in fact, nearly all companies en- ders for the enlargement of pictures, and at the same time take a conditional order for a frame and the orders are forwarded to Chicago and returned and the picture delivered, and, at the time of the delivey, the customer then se- lects his frame. The transaction so far as it relates to the picture is in- terstate commerce. But the agent Is liable for tax, for he sells the frames at the time of the delivery and that part of the transatcoin, in my opinion, Is not interstate commerce.
 The opinion follows:
 Your favor of May 14 was duly re- ceived requesting me to advise you whether, under the facts shown in the papers enclosed to me, the defendants are liable for the license tax imposed py SeCtiOn I1 UT the ACt OL mArCn (, 1907. Section IT of this Act is as fol- lows:
 "'That each person, firm or corpora tion, either in person or through agents, who solocits orders for the en- largement of photographs or pictures of any character, or for picture frames, whether they make charge for such frames or not; or any person, firm or corporation, either in person or .IY- of pictures or frames, shall pay a license tax of twenty-five dollars in each county in which they may do business; but this Act shall not apply to merchants or dealers having a per manent place of business in this State and keeping picture frames as a part of all of their stock in trade
 '"The agreed statement of facts en- closed in your letter Is not signed by either the defendant or the county at- torney. It may or may not be correcs I suggest that you take the matter up with the county attorney and ascer- tain whether he agreed to this stae- ment as being correct. It is indefinite and evasive in several features. If the travelling representative of the Chi cago Portrait Company, a corporation under the laws of Illinois, and doing business in that State, solicits orders for the enlargement of pictures in this State and in connection there with, solicits and receives orders for frames, and such orders are forwarded to the Portrait Company in Chicago, together with the pictures to be en- larged and framed, and the pictures are returned to this State when en- larged and delivered in the frame or dered in the first instance by the pur- chaser, the transaction constitutes in terstate commerce. But the practice of this company and in fact of nearly all companies engaged in this business, Is to solicit orders for the enlargement of pictures and at the same time take a conditional order from the customer for a frame and the orders are for warded to Chicago and returned and the picture delivered. and, at the time of delivery, the customer then selects the frame. The transaction. so far as it relates to the picture, Is interstate commerce. But the agent is liable for a tax, for he sells the frame at the time of the delivery and that part Of the transaction is not, in my opinion, interstate commerce. The statute pro- vides That any person, firm or cor poration, either in person or through agents, who sells or disposes of pie ture frames, shall pay license tax of twenty-five dollars and 1t is en- tirely immaterial that the sale of the enlarged picture is interstate com mArce and protected by the Federal