Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1916-11-17
/ MI DECISION
Supreme Court of Appeals Rules
Evidences of Credit Have No Situs
of Taxation.

tention of .Attorney-General John
Garland Pollard, the Supreme Court
Of Appeals yesterday held that bonds
or notes, evidences of credit in the
hands of nonresident, arising from
business transactions in this state
and secured by trust deeds on lands
! in Virginia, have no situs of taxa
ton here, unless such documents may
be assessed at the holders business
| domicile in this State or at that OF
his authorized agent or representative
The opinion of the court was rem
| dered by Judge Richard H. Cardwell,
the retiring chief justice, and was a
reversal OF the Circuit Court Of Page
county, which dismissed the appll-
cation of J V. Jamson "a resident of
Hagerstown, Md, petitioning for re-
lief from taxes assessed by the exam
iner of records for the circuit on
bonds amounting in the aggregate to
$3G, $50 and secured by deeds of trust
on certain lands situated in Page
county.
Jamison was concededly without
the jurisdiction of the State. The
bonds were not held in Virginia, but
we're in the hands of Jamison in
MARYLAND. He paid taxes on them in
that State. There was no business
domicile used by the holder in Vir-
ginia, nor was it established that he
had ever, employed a legal represen-
tative in this State. Jamison. per-
sona!ly collected money due on notes
he held, and purchased the bonds
without the assistance of an agent.
The Acknowledgement, in his argu-
ment before the court, held that the
test of the States right to tax these
evidences of credit was not their
presence in Virginia, not the jurls-
liction over the person of the owner.
nor the intervention Of an agerc, but
.he !ocalization of the business from
which they arise. 1t was contended
that Jamison was not q casual inves-
.or in Virginia property, but conduct
ID a regularly constituted business in
this State.
Against this contention the court
ruled that Certainly it cannot be ar
otrariIy said that because JamIson
rad many loans in Page county, the
evidences of the loans, which are the
subject of this controversy, are as
sessable for taxation in Page county
bv reason of the debtors having their
residence in the county, or because
the land which is security for the
bonds or notes is situated in Page
county. since the statute, instead OF
so providing, expressly stipulates that
such bonds or notes are assessable.
r at all, at the business domiciIe OF
such nonresident in this State.
It seems clear to us from the read
ing of the statute as Il whole that,
so far as applicable in this case, It's
meaning is that where nonresident
person corporation comes into
Virginia I'd establishes place OF
business to buy bonds or notes and
thus loan money and have obligations
duo arising from that business he is
to be taxed upon such obligations just
as a citizen of Virginia engaged IN a
like business is taxed, the tax there
on to be assessed at the business
domicila of such nonresident persons
or corporation or its agent or re-
preventative.
eve take it for granted that 1t
would not be contended that, if q
nonresident were to come into brok'
.cr's office or elsewhere in this State
and invest his money in choscr
action of any character as loan
! and do this repeatedly, he was engag'
cd in business in the city or county
where he made the investment OF
investments, within the meaning OF
the statute here under consideration,
The court pointed out that, in thu
case cited by Mr.. Pollard in suppor
of his contention. the transactions re
ferred to were conducted within the
State by agents of the creditor OF
the latter's behalf, and called atten attte.,
ton to the case Of the Common
i wealth against the United Cigarette
! machine Company, a foreign corpora
I ton, which was taxed because 1t nat
| its credits in the company's office a
i Durnid, Campbell county.
The opinion closed with this cIta
ton, from court ruling: Laws i'm
posing a license or a tax are strlctl!
~ 4 = /,