Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1908-04-30

assessment OF stock OF national banks ia the
same taxing district to be reduced to the
same PERCENTAGE of value-for example, if
the stock Of trust company was worth
fifty per cent more than par, then the stock
of national banks ID the same taxing dis
tricts could be taxed only st two-thirds OF
its value. The case subsequently, came to
this court, and we cpncnrred in the views
expressed in the opinion OF the Supreme
Court except upon the last point mentioned.
Upon this point we held shat trust com
panies were taxable upon she market value,
not the par value, OF their stock, aud that
therefore the assessment and imposition
upon them was she exact equivalent of that
upon national bank stock, and, so, that
there was no Discrimination against the lat-
ter made by our tax laws, s. c. So Vr,
1 549:
IN the year 1900, the scheme of taxation
of bank stock created by the act of 1899 was
/ altered by providing that thereafter all real
estate Of any bank should be assessed 60 the
bank in the city, township or ward in which
said real estate was coated and the amount
of the assessment deducted from the assets
of the bank in estimating the assessable
value OF the shares Of stock Of said bank.
Pamphlet Laws. page 1885,. With this ex-
lception the act of lS99remained unchanged
until the year 1905, and taxes were assessed
against the stock of banking corporations
under the rule laid down in bhe Mechanics
Bank case, with the modification provided
by the act OF 1900, having IN mind this
situation of the law respecting the taxation
OF bank stock, what object had the legisla-
ture in passing the supplement- Of 1905
That they proposed to make some change
in the existing law must be conceded, for
it cannot be presumed that they went
through the form OF passing a statute that
! they intended should have no force or ef-
feet whatever. That portion of the act
1 which required the deduction of the value
OF the real property Of the bank from the
total valuation OF the shares of stock as
sessed against the stockholders maniFestIy
made no change in the law, for as has been
already pointed out shat change was made
! by the act of 1900. The provision that the
assessment aud taxation of shares Of bank
stock should net be at a greater rate than is
made or assessed upon other moneyed capi-
tai in the hands Of individuals in this State,
although not previously found in our stat
utes,. was nevertheless part Of the existing
! law. for is was embodied in section 5219 OF
the federal statutes and was binding upon
/ the State, as was Indicted in the Mechan-
les Bank case. The change in The law,
therefore, must be found in the provision
(which requires thai In assessing tbs
shares Of stock Of bank or banking associa-
tions organized under the laws Of this State
OF Of the United States, the assessors shall
allow ali the deductions and exemptions
granted by law from the value of other tax
able property owned by individuals in this
4 State. - At the time Of the enactment of
the statute, and for nearly half century
previously, the general tax law of the State
permitted she individual taxpayer TO have
Il deducted from the total value of his taxable
personal property all debts bona fide due,
and owing from him to creditors residing in
4 the State It also entitled him to have ex-
empted from taxation all ''non- taxable" se-
curities held by him. To adopt the con-
struction put by thes Supreme Court upon
the last cited provision of the act Of 1905,
is. therefore, to declare that the legislature,
in enacting it, intended to accomplish moth
Il ing. This, as we haYe already stated, is, in
our Judgment, enough to condemn such a
construction.
4 But, aside from this, the wording of the
statute itself initiates against the meaning
put upon it by the Supreme Court. Its
mandate is that the assessor shall allow all
deduetions and exemptions granted by law
to individual taxpayers The deduction
which the law allows TO the individual is
the subtraction Of his debts from the total
valuation of bis taxable personal property
not from any particular portion thereof; the
exemption granted him by law is the right
70 have excluded from the assessment of his
personal property every non-taxable secu-
rity which he holds. The phraseology of
the statute is not apt 10 express an intent
to provide different method of making the
deduction Of the taxpayers debts when he
happens to be the holder of bank stock from
that which prevails when he is not such
holder, although it is, of course, susceptible
of being so read. But the requirements that
the assessor shall allow exemptions cannot be
given tffece against stock In the hands of
the taxpayer except by exempting the stock
itself from taxation, for the only exemption
allowed to the individual taxpayer Is ex-
emption from taxation on securities which
the law has relieved from such burden.
Clearly, the wording of the statute mega
tives any such intention.
We conclude that, by the true construc-
tion Of the act OF 1905, in making an assess
rnent Of the shares of stock, either of state
or national bank, against the stockholders,
the assessors is required to deduct from the
total valuation Of all the shares, not only
the assessed valuation Of the real property
of such hank, but also the total value of all
the non-taxabie securities held by the bank
4 The judgment Of the Supreme Court will
be reversed.
flPnhans' l0uef Matters.