Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1907-01-25

corporation on SUCH SHARES.
The deduction of the amount caVity stock,
as practiced BY you, lie in effd# 10 exempt
from local taxation so much ofsthe eabital
stock OF the corporation as IL invested IL
city stock. You are of course familiar with
the general policy of the law not TO allow
exemptions where the language Is capable
Of any other construction. The doctrine Is
well stated by Chief Judge McSherry in
sindall vs.. Baltimore (93 Md: ITO doubt
Is to deny an exemption"
In the recent opinion OF the Court Of APP
peals in the October Term. the Mayor of
Baltimore VS.. The State Of Maryland, In re-
spect to the general system Of taxation pro-
vded in Article 81, affecting the property OF
the various corporations, the Court says !:
"Under the system Of taxing property held
BY banks and other corporations, the
corporation is exempted from taxation on
none OF It,"
City stock held by individuals In Mont
gomery county is not exempt from taxation
and no good reason can be assigned why it
should be given the effect OF local exemption
when held by corporations in this county.
But even II 1t were exempted by express act
from specific local taxation to the holder, it
would not follow that the shareholders OF
corporations holding 1t, would be allowed
an exemption on such amount of their
shares as equals the amount of city stock
held by the corporation.
In Emory Va. State, Al Md, 38, the Court
Of Appeals declined to allow such credit
in the case OF mortgages held BY the cor
porations, though the mortgages themselves
were exempted by law from taxation. The
United States Supreme Court has repeatedly
declared that the non taxability Of certain
forms Of property, like government bonds,
did not prevent the taxation Of the shares OF
banks holding them and without deduction
from such investment.
Van Allen vs. Commissioners, 8 Wall, 678
National Bank vs.. Commonwealth, o Wall,
1856.
The only conceivable reason for provid.
ing the credit In the case of city stock, Is to
prevent q double tag. II the credit is re-
stricted to the State tax, this intent is com.
piled with; but when the credit extenos
also to the local tax 1t does not avoid don-
BILE tax for local purposes but 1t avoids any
tax at all for such purposes.
In support of the request of the Board
of County Commissioners for Monteomerg
county that your assessments for this and
succeeding years shall conform to this view
of the law, deem 1t proper to call your at
tention TO the fact that the present Attorney
General has officially accepted the construc.
ton Of the Act of 1888. Chapter $40, which
we now ask yon to apply. In his printed
brlefin the case Of the State Of Maryland vs.
M. d.. Q. Q. OF Baltimore, Court Of Appeals,
October Term, 1905, General Docket No. IS,
he says (page 16):
"In order therefore, to place corpora
ton on precisely the same footing as an in
dividusl, and only for this purpose, the Act
Of 1885, Chapter 8l2, was passed, which pro-
vided 10 substance 30 far as this question lie
concerned, that whenever a corporation !,
having Its capital stock divided into shares,
owned as an Investment of part of Its CAPT.
tai, any of the stock debt of the city of Bal
timore, on which the State taxes had been
paid, or are payable by the city, then such
corporation should be allowed q credit In
the settlement of taxes on the shares of CAPT
tai stock OF such corporation 60 owning the
same, the amount of State tas either PAYABLE
or paid by the city," (Itslics supplied1
l respectfully submit that in view of this
uneouivocal Interpretation of the act by the
Attorney General and concurred In BY his
eminent associate in that case Edgar Fl
Cans. ESQ.,. Won would not be iustified in
continuing to allow the credit for more than
the State tar