Source: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/research/rule-of-law/flint-v-stone-tracy-co-220-u-s-107-1911/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:38:39+00:00

Document:
Joint stock companies and associations share many benefits of corporate organization, and are properly classified with corporations in a tax measure such as the Corporation Tax. Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U. S. 397.
has power to impose under Art. I, § 8, cl. 1, of the Constitution. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429; 158 U. S. 158 U.S. 601, distinguished.
The exemption from federal taxation of the means and instrumentalities employed in carrying on the governmental operations of the states does not extend to state agencies and instrumentalities used for carrying on business of a private character. South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437.
The constitutional limitation of uniformity in excise taxes does not require equal application of the tax to all coming within its operation, but is limited to geographical uniformity throughout the United States. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41.
If it is within the power of Congress to impose the tax, it is also within its power to enact effectual means to collect the tax. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 17 U. S. 421.
The unreasonable search and seizure provision of the Fourth Amendment does not prevent the federal government from requiring ordinary and reasonable tax returns such as those required by the Corporation Tax Law.
This Court will not pass on questions of constitutionality of a statute until they arise, and no question is now presented as to whether the provisions of the Corporation Tax Law offend the self-incrimination provisions of the Fifth Amendment or whether the penalties for noncompliance are so high as to violate the Constitution; the penalty provisions of the act are separable, and their constitutionality can be determined if a proper case arises.
No case is presented on this record involving the question of lack of power to tax foreign corporations doing local business in a state, or whether, if the tax on foreign corporation is unconstitutional, it would invalidate the tax on domestic corporations as working an inequality against the latter; nor is any case presented involving the invalidity of the act as a tax on exports.
Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of August 5, 1909, are stated in the opinion.
These cases involve the constitutional validity of § 38 of the Act of Congress approved August 5, 1909, known as “the corporation tax” law. 36 Stat., c. 6, 11, 112-117.
is contained in the government’s brief, and is accepted as correct, no objection being made to its accuracy.
This statement shows that the tariff bill of which the section under consideration is a part originated in the House of Representatives, and was there a general bill for the collection of revenue. As originally introduced, it contained a plan of inheritance taxation. In the Senate, the proposed tax was removed from the bill, and the corporation tax, in a measure, substituted therefor. The bill having properly originated in the House, we perceive no reason in the constitutional provision relied upon why it may not be amended in the Senate in the manner which it was in this case. The amendment was germane to the subject matter of the bill, and not beyond the power of the Senate to propose. In thus deciding, we do not wish to be regarded as holding that the journals of the House and Senate may be examined to invalidate an act which has been passed and signed by the presiding officers of the House and Senate, and approved by the President, and duly deposited with the State Department. Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649; Harwood v. Wentworth, 162 U. S. 547; Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U. S. 196.
income over and above $5,000 received by such corporation or company from all sources during the year, excluding, however, amounts received by them as dividends upon stock of other corporations, joint stock companies or associations, or insurance companies, subject to the tax imposed by the statute. Similar companies organized under the laws of any foreign country, and engaged in business in any state or territory of the United States, or in Alaska or the District of Columbia, are required to pay the tax upon the net income over and above $5,000 received by them from business transacted and capital invested within the United States, the territories, Alaska, and the District of Columbia, during each year, with the like exclusion as to amounts received by them as dividends upon stock of other corporations, joint stock companies or associations, or insurance companies, subject to the tax imposed.
of corporate or joint stock organization of the character described. As the latter organizations share many benefits of corporate organization, it may be described generally as a tax upon the doing of business in a corporate capacity. In the case of the insurance companies, the tax is imposed upon the transaction of such business by companies organized under the laws of the United States or any state or territory, as heretofore stated.
This tax, it is expressly stated, is to be equivalent to one percentum of the entire net income over and above $5,000 received from all sources during the year — this is the measure of the tax explicitly adopted by the statute. The income is not limited to such as is received from property used in the business, strictly speaking, but is expressly declared to be upon the entire net income above $5,000 from all sources, excluding the amounts received as dividends on stock in other corporations, joint stock companies or associations, or insurance companies also subject to the tax. In other words, the tax is imposed upon the doing of business of the character described, and the measure of the tax is to be income, with the deduction stated, received not only from property used in business, but from every source. This view of the measure of the tax is strengthened when we note that as to organizations under the laws of foreign countries, the amount of net income over and above $5,000 includes that received from business transacted and capital invested in the United States, the territories, Alaska, and the District of Columbia.
under the third section is required to show the gross amount of the income, received during the year “from all sources.” The evident purpose is to secure a return of the entire income, with certain allowances and deductions which do not suggest a restriction to income derived from property actively engaged in the business. This interpretation of the act, as resting upon the doing of business, is sustained by the reasoning in Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. McClain, 192 U. S. 397, in which a special tax measured by the gross receipts of the business of refining oil and sugar was sustained as an excise in respect to the carrying on or doing of such business.
It is contended that it is not; certainly so far as the tax is measured by the income of bonds nontaxable under federal statutes, and municipal and state bonds beyond the federal power of taxation. And so of real and personal estates, because as to such estates the tax is direct, and required to be apportioned according to population among the states. It is insisted that such must be the holding unless this Court is prepared to reverse the income tax cases decided under the Act of 1894. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, s.c. 158 U. S. 158 U.S. 601.
158 U.S. 158 U. S. 635.
P. 158 U. S. 637.
The act now under consideration does not impose direct taxation upon property solely because of its ownership, but the tax is within the class which Congress is authorized to lay and collect under Article I, § 8, clause 1 of the Constitution, and described generally as taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, upon which the limitation is that they shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Within the category of indirect taxation, as we shall have further occasion to show, is embraced a tax upon business done in a corporate capacity, which is the subject matter of the tax imposed in the act under consideration. The Pollock case construed the tax there levied as direct, because it was imposed upon property simply because of its ownership. In the present case, the tax is not payable unless there be a carrying on or doing of business in the designated capacity, and this is made the occasion for the tax, measured by the standard prescribed. The difference between the acts is not merely nominal, but rests upon substantial differences between the mere ownership of property and the actual doing of business in a certain way.
Cooley, Const.Lim., 7th ed., 680.
privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.
If we are correct in holding that this is an excise tax, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring such taxes to be apportioned according to population. Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433; Springer v. United States, 102 U. S. 586; Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. McClain, 192 U. S. 397.
It is next contended that the attempted taxation is void because it levies a tax upon the exclusive right of a state to grant corporate franchises, because it taxes franchises which are the creation of the state in its sovereign right and authority. This proposition is rested upon the implied limitation upon the powers of national and state governments to take action which encroaches upon or cripples the exercise of the exclusive power of sovereignty in the other. It has been held in a number of cases that the state cannot tax franchises created by the United States or the agencies or corporations which are created for the purpose of carrying out governmental functions of the United States. M’Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738; Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5; California v. Central Pac. R. Co., 127 U. S. 1.
The inquiry in this connection is how far do the implied limitations upon the taxing power of the United States over objects which would otherwise be legitimate subjects of federal taxation withdraw them from the reach of the federal government in raising revenue because they are pursued under franchises which are the creation of the states?
The limitations to which the Chief Justice refers were the only ones imposed in the Constitution upon the taxing power.
In McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, this Court sustained a federal tax on oleomargarine, artificially colored, and held that, while the Fifth and Tenth Amendments qualify, so far as applicable, all the provisions of the Constitution, nothing in those amendments operates to take away the power to tax conferred by the Constitution on the Congress. In that case, it was contended that the subject taxed was within the exclusive domain of the states, and that the real purpose of Congress was not to raise revenue, but to tax out of existence a substance not harmful of itself and one which might be lawfully manufactured and sold; but the only constitutional limitation which this Court conceded, in addition to the requirement of uniformity, and that, for the sake of argument only so far as concerned the case then under consideration, was that Congress is restrained from arbitrary impositions or from exceeding its power in seeking to effect unwarranted ends. The limitation of uniformity was deemed sufficient by those who framed and adopted the Constitution. The courts may not add others. Patton v. Brady, 184 U. S. 608, 184 U. S. 622. And see 82 U. S. Singer, 15 Wall. 111, 82 U. S. 121; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 173 U. S. 515.
We must therefore enter upon the inquiry as to implied limitations upon the exercise of the federal authority to tax because of the sovereignty of the states over matters within their exclusive jurisdiction, having in view the nature and extent of the power specifically conferred upon Congress by the Constitution of the United States. We must remember too that the revenues of the United States must be obtained in the same territory, from the same people, and excise taxes must be collected from the same activities, as are also reached by the states in order to support their local government.
While the tax in this case, as we have construed the statute, is imposed upon the exercise of the privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, as such business is done under authority of state franchises, it becomes necessary to consider in this connection the right of the federal government to tax the activities of private corporations which arise from the exercise of franchises granted by the state in creating and conferring powers upon such corporations. We think it is the result of the cases heretofore decided in this Court that such business activities, though exercised because of state-created franchises, are not beyond the taxing power of the United States. Taxes upon rights exercised under grants of state franchises were sustained by this Court in Railroad Co. v. Collector, 100 U. S. 595; United States v. Erie R. Co., 106 U. S. 327; Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U. S. 397.
Pp. 75 U. S. 547-548.
In Thomas v. United States, 192 U. S. 363, a federal tax on the transfer of corporate shares in state corporations was upheld as a tax upon business transacted in the exercise of privileges afforded by the state laws in respect to corporations.
In Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, a federal tax was sustained upon the enjoyment of privileges afforded by a board of trade incorporated by the State of Illinois.
When the Constitution was framed, the right to lay excise taxes was broadly conferred upon the Congress. At that time, very few corporations existed. If the mere fact of state incorporation, extending now to nearly all branches of trade and industry, could withdraw the legitimate objects of federal taxation from the exercise of the power conferred, the result would be to exclude the national government from many objects upon which indirect taxes could be constitutionally imposed. Let it be supposed that a group of individuals, as partners, were carrying on a business upon which Congress concluded to lay an excise tax. If it be true that the forming of a state corporation would defeat this purpose, by taking the necessary steps required by the state law to create a corporation and carrying on the business under rights granted by a state statute, the federal tax would become invalid and that source of national revenue be destroyed, except as to the business in the hands of individuals or partnerships. It cannot be supposed that it was intended that it should be within the power of individuals acting under state authority to thus impair and limit the exertion of authority which may be essential to national existence.
In this connection, South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, is important. In that case, it was held that the agents of the state government, carrying on the business of selling liquor under state authority, were liable to pay the internal revenue tax imposed by the federal government. In the opinion, previous cases in this Court were reviewed, and the rule to be deduced therefrom stated to be that the exemption of state agencies and instrumentalities from national taxation was limited to those of a strictly governmental character, and did not extend to those used by the state in carrying on business of a private character. 199 U.S. 199 U. S. 461.
governmental operations of the state. The exercise of such rights as the establishment of a judiciary, the employment of officers to administer and execute the laws, and similar governmental functions, cannot be taxed by the federal government. The Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113; United States v. Railroad Co., 17 Wall. 322; Ambrosini v. United States, 187 U. S. 1.
But, it is insisted, this taxation is so unequal and arbitrary in the fact that it taxes a business when carried on by a corporation, and exempts a similar business when carried on by a partnership or private individual, as to place it beyond the authority conferred upon Congress. As we have seen, the only limitation upon the authority conferred is uniformity in laying the tax, and uniformity does not require the equal application of the tax to all persons or corporations who may come within its operation, but is limited to geographical uniformity throughout the United States. This subject was fully discussed and set at rest in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, and we can add nothing to the discussion contained in that case.
It is insisted in some of the briefs assailing the validity of this tax that these cases have been modified by Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400. In that case, a corporation organized in a state other than Alabama came into that state in compliance with its laws, paid the license tax and property tax imposed upon other corporations doing business in the state, and acquired, under direct sanction of the laws of the state, a large amount of property therein, and when it was attempted to subject it to a further tax, on the ground that it was for the privilege of doing business as a foreign corporation, when the same tax was not imposed upon state corporations doing precisely the same business, in the same way, it was held that the attempted taxation was merely arbitrary classification, and void under the Fourteenth Amendment. In that case, the foreign corporation was doing business under the sanction of the state laws no less than the local corporation; it had acquired its property under sanction of those laws; it had paid all direct and indirect taxes levied against it, and there was no practical distinction between it and a state corporation doing the same business in the same way.
but the tax is laid upon the privileges which exist in conducting business with the advantages which inhere in the corporate capacity of those taxed, and which are not enjoyed by private firms or individuals. These advantages are obvious, and have led to the formation of such companies in nearly all branches of trade. The continuity of the business, without interruption by death or dissolution, the transfer of property interests by the disposition of shares of stock, the advantages of business controlled and managed by corporate directors, the general absence of individual liability, these and other things inhere in the advantages of business thus conducted, which do not exist when the same business is conducted by private individuals or partnerships. It is this distinctive privilege which is the subject of taxation, not the mere buying or selling or handling of goods, which may be the same, whether done by corporations or individuals.
It is further contended that some of the corporations, notably insurance companies, have large investments in municipal bonds and other nontaxable securities, and in real estate and personal property not used in the business; that therefore the selection of the measure of the income from all sources is void, because it reaches property which is not the subject of taxation, upon the authority of the Pollock case, supra. But this argument confuses the measure of the tax upon the privilege with direct taxation of the state or thing taxed. In the Pollock case, as we have seen, the tax was held unconstitutional because it was in effect a direct tax on the property solely because of its ownership.
receipts “from every source whatever” of lines of railroad lying wholly within the state, was invalid as an attempt to tax gross receipts derived from the carriage of passengers and freight in interstate commerce, which in some instances was much the larger part of the gross receipts taxed. This Court held that this act was an attempt to burden commerce among the states, and the fact that it was declared to be “equal to” one percent made no difference, as it was merely an effort to reach gross receipts by a tax not even disguised as an occupation tax, and in nowise helped by the words “equal to.” In other words, the tax was held void, as its substance and manifest intent was to tax interstate commerce as such.
In the Western Union Telegraph cases, the state undertook to levy a graded charter fee upon the entire capital stock of one hundred millions of dollars of the Western Union Telegraph Company, a foreign corporation, and engaged in commerce among the states, as a condition of doing local business within the State of Kansas. This Court held, looking through forms and reaching the substance of the thing, that the tax thus imposed was in reality a tax upon the right to do interstate commerce within the state, and an undertaking to tax property beyond the limits of the state; that whatever the declared purpose, when reasonably interpreted, the necessary operation and effect of the act in question was to burden interstate commerce and to tax property beyond the jurisdiction of the state, and it was therefore invalid.
as such and to measure a legitimate tax upon the privileges involved in the use of such property.
In that case, in the course of the opinion, previous cases of this Court were cited, with approval. Society for Savings v. Coite, 6 Wall. 594; Provident Institution v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 611.
In Provident Institution v. Massachusetts, supra, a like tax was sustained.
It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this Court that, when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable. Applying that doctrine to this case, the measure of taxation being the income of the corporation from all sources, as that is but the measure of a privilege tax within the lawful authority of Congress to impose, it is no valid objection that this measure includes, in part at least, property which, as such, could not be directly taxed. See, in this connection, Maine v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 142 U. S. 217, as interpreted in Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Ry. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 210 U. S. 226.
capital. A tax upon the amount of business done might operate as unequally as a measure of excise as it is alleged the measure of income from all sources does. Nor can it be justly said that investments have no real relation to the business transacted by a corporation. The possession of large assets is a business advantage of great value; it may give credit which will result in more economical business methods; it may give a standing which shall facilitate purchases; it may enable the corporation to enlarge the field of its activities and in many ways give it business standing and prestige.
In Society for Savings v. Coite, 6 Wall., supra, and Provident Institution v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall., supra, as we have seen, the amount of excise was measured by the amount of bank deposits. It made no difference that the deposits were not used actively in the business.
In Hamilton Company v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 632, the tax was measured by the excess of the market value of the corporation’s capital stock above the value of its real estate and machinery, and in this connection see Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 134 U.S. supra, where the excise was computed upon the entire capital stock, measured by the extent of the dividends thereon.
We must not forget that the right to select the measure and objects of taxation devolves upon the Congress, and not upon the courts, and such selections are valid unless constitutional limitations are overstepped.
Patton v. Brady, 184 U. S. 608; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 195 U. S. 58, and previous cases in this Court there cited.
Nor is that line of cases applicable, such as Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, holding that a tax on the sales of an importer is a tax on the import, and Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566, holding a tax on auctioneers’ sales of goods in original packages a tax on imports. In these cases, the tax was held invalid, as the state thereby taxed subjects of taxation within the exclusive power of Congress.
What we have said as to the power of Congress to lay this excise tax disposes of the contention that the act is void, as lacking in due process of law.
The argument at last, comes to this: that, because of possible results, a power lawfully exercised may work disastrously, therefore the courts must interfere to prevent its exercise, because of the consequences feared. No such authority has ever been invested in any court. The remedy for such wrongs, if such in fact exist, is in the ability of the people to choose their own representatives, and not in the exertion of unwarranted powers by courts of justice.
Company; No. 443, Phillips v. Fifty Associates et al.; No. 446, Mitchell v. Clark Iron Company; No. 412, William H. Miner v. Corn Exchange Bank et al., and No. 457, Cook et al. v. Boston Wharf Company.
At the time the bill was filed, the business of the company related to the Hotel Leonori, and the bill averred that it was engaged in no other business except the management and leasing of that hotel.
charter authorizing it to acquire lands and flats, with their privileges and appurtenances, and to lease, manage, and improve its property in whatever manner shall be deemed expedient by it, and to receive dockage and wharfage for vessels laid at its wharfs.
What we have said as to the character of the corporation tax as an excise disposes of the contention that it is direct, and therefore requiring apportionment by the Constitution. It remains to consider whether these corporations are engaged in business. “Business” is a very comprehensive term and embraces everything about which a person can be employed. Black’s Law Dict. 158, citing People ex Rel. Hoyt v. Tax Comm’rs, 23 N.Y. 242, 244. “That which occupies the time, attention, and labor of men for the purpose of a livelihood or profit.” 1 Bouvier’s Law Dict. p. 273.
Rapid Transit Company, No. 442, exempted from the operation of this statute? In the case of South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, this Court held that, when a state, acting within its lawful authority, undertook to carry on the liquor business, it did not withdraw the agencies of the state, carrying on the traffic, from the operation of the internal revenue laws of the United States. If a state may not thus withdraw from the operation of a federal taxing law a subject matter of such taxation, it is difficult to see how the incorporation of companies whose service, though of a public nature, is nevertheless with a view to private profit, can have the effect of denying the federal right to reach such properties and activities for the purposes of revenue.
It is no part of the essential governmental functions of a state to provide means of transportation, supply artificial light, water, and the like. These objects are often accomplished through the medium of private corporations, and though the public may derive a benefit from such operations, the companies carrying on such enterprises are nevertheless private companies, whose business is prosecuted for private emolument and advantage. For the purpose of taxation, they stand upon the same footing as other private corporations upon which special franchises have been conferred.
so-called public service corporations represented in the cases at bar are not exempt from the tax in question. Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5, 85 U. S. 33.
It is again objected that incomes under $5,000 are exempted from the tax. It is only necessary, in this connection, to refer to Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S., supra, in which a tax upon inheritances in excess of $10,000 was sustained. In Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 170 U. S. 293, a graded inheritance tax was sustained.
As to the objections that certain organizations — labor, agricultural, and horticultural, fraternal and benevolent societies, loan and building associations, and those for religious, charitable, or educational purposes, are excepted from the operation of the law, we find nothing in them to invalidate the tax. As we have had frequent occasion to say, the decisions of this Court from an early date to the present time have emphasized the right of Congress to select the objects of excise taxation, and within this power to tax some and leave others untaxed must be included the right to make exemptions such as are found in this act.
for that of the legislature. In such matters, a wide range of discretion is allowed.
The argument that different corporations are so differently circumstanced in different states, and the operation of the law so unequal as to destroy it, is so fully met in the opinion in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S., supra, that it is only necessary to make reference thereto. For this purpose, the law operates uniformly, geographically considered, throughout the United States, and in the same way wherever the subject matter is found. A liquor tax is not rendered unlawful as a revenue measure because it may yield nothing in those states which have prohibited the liquor traffic. No more is the present law unconstitutional because of inequality of operation owing to different local conditions.
We cannot say that this feature of the law does violence to the constitutional protection of the Fourth Amendment, and, this is equally true of the Fifth Amendment, protecting persons against compulsory self-incriminating testimony. No question under the latter Amendment properly arises in these cases, and when circumstances are presented which invoke the protection of that Amendment, and raise questions involving rights thereby secured, it will be time enough to decide them. And so of the argument that the penalties for the nonpayment of the taxes are so high as to violate the Constitution. No case is presented involving that question, and, moreover, the penalties are clearly a separate part of the act, and whether collectible or not may be determined in a case involving an attempt to enforce them. Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co., 212 U. S. 19, 212 U. S. 53.
It has been suggested that there is a lack of power to tax foreign corporations, doing local business in a state, in the manner proposed in this act, and that the tax upon such corporations, being unconstitutional, works such inequality against domestic corporations as to invalidate the law. It is sufficient to say to this that no such case is presented in the record. Southern Railway Co. v. King, 217 U. S. 525. This is equally true as to the alleged invalidity of the act as a tax on exports, which is beyond the power of Congress. No such case is presented in those now before the court.
Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171 (a tax on carriages which the owner kept for private use); Nicol v. Ames, supra, (a tax upon sales or exchanges of boards of trade); Knowlton v. Moore, supra, (a tax on the transmission of property from the dead to the living); Treat v. White, 181 U. S. 264 (a tax on agreements to sell shares of stock, denominated “calls” by stockbrokers); Patton v. Brady, 184 U. S. 608 (a tax on tobacco manufactured for consumption, and imposed at a period intermediate the commencement of manufacture and the final consumption of the article); Cornell v. Coyne, 192 U. S. 418 (a tax on “filled cheese” manufactured expressly for export); McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27 (a tax on oleomargarine not artificially colored, a higher tax on oleomargarine artificially colored, and no tax on butter artificially colored); Thomas v. United States, supra, (a tax on sales of shares of stock in corporations); Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433 (a tax upon the amounts insured, renewed, or continued by insurance companies, upon the gross amounts of premiums received and assessments made by them, and also upon dividends, undistributed sums, and incomes); Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533 (a tax of ten percentum on the amount of the notes paid out of any state bank, or state banking association); Scholey v. Rew, 23 Wall. 331 (a tax on devolutions of title to real estate); Spreckels v. Sugar Refining Co., 192 U. S. 397 (a tax on the gross receipts of corporations and companies, in excess of $250,000, engaged in refining sugar or oil); Railroad Co. v. Collector, 100 U. S. 595 (a tax laid in terms upon the amounts paid by certain public service corporations as interest on their funded debt, or as dividends to their stockholders, and also on “all profits, incomes, or gains of such company, and all profits of such company carried to the account of any fund, or used for construction.” Held to be a tax upon the company’s earnings, and therefore essentially an excise upon the business of the corporations); Springer v. United States, 102 U. S. 586 (a duty provided by the internal revenue acts to be assessed, collected, and paid upon gains, profits, and incomes, held to be an excise or duty, and not a direct tax).
Beers v. Glynn, 211 U. S. 477 (a state tax on personalty of nonresident decedents who owned realty in the state); Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152 (a state tax on the transfers of stock made within the state); Armour Packing Co. v. Lacy, 200 U. S. 226 (a state license tax on meat-packing houses. A foreign corporation selling its products in the state, but whose packing establishments are not situated in the state, is not exempt from such license tax); Savannah, Thunderbolt & Isle of Hope Railway v. Savannah, 198 U. S. 392 (a classification which distinguishes between an ordinary street railway and a steam railroad, making an extra charge for local deliveries of freight brought over its road from outside the city, held not to be such a classification as to make the tax void under the Fourteenth Amendment); Cook v. Marshall County, 196 U. S. 261 (a state tax on cigarette dealers); Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U. S. 283 (upholding the graded inheritance tax law of Illinois); Bell’s Gap Railroad Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232 (state tax upon the nominal face value of bonds, instead of their actual value, held a valid part of the state system of taxation).
In Connecticut, the requirement is that the tax lists of the assessors shall be abstracted and lodged in the town clerk’s office “for public inspection.” R.S.Conn., § 2310. In New York, notices of the completion of the assessment rolls must be conspicuously posted in three or more public places, and a copy left in a specified place, “where it may be seen and examined by any person until the third Tuesday of August next following.” Consol.Laws of N.Y. vol. 5, p. 5859; N.Y.Laws 1909, c. 62, § 36. In Maryland, a record of property assessed is required to be kept, and the valuation thereof, with alphabetical list of owners, recorded in a book, “which any person may inspect without fee or reward.” Pub.Laws Md., vol. 2, p. 1804, § 23. In Pennsylvania, it is provided that from the time of publishing the assessor’s returns until the day appointed for finally determining whether the assessor’s valuations are too low, “any taxable inhabitant of the county shall have the right to examine the said return in the commissioner’s office.” Pepper & Lewis’ Dig.Laws Pa., vol. 2, p. 4591, § 357. In New Hampshire, the list of taxes assessed are required to be kept in a book, and also left with the town clerk, and such records “shall be open to the inspection of all persons.” Pub.Stat.N.H., 1901, p. 214, § 5.

References: v. 
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 38
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2310
 § 36
 § 23
 § 357
 § 5