Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/306/466
Timestamp: 2018-01-21 16:49:56
Document Index: 122007340

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 1461', '§ 4', '§ 1463', '§ 4', 'Art. 1']

GRAVES et al. v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. O'KEEFE. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
306 U.S. 466 (59 S.Ct. 595, 83 L.Ed. 927)
Argued: March 6, 1939.
Decided: March 27, 1939.
dissent, BUTLER [HTML]
Argument of Counsel from page 467 intentionally omitted
Argument of Counsel from pages 468-471 intentionally omitted
Argument of Counsel from Pages 472-474 intentionally omitted
On review by certiorari the Board's action was set aside by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, People ex rel. O'Keefe v. Graves, 253 App.Div. 91, 1 N.Y.S.2d 195, whose order was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 278 N.Y. 691, 16 N.E.2d 404. Both courts held respondent's salary was free from tax on the authority of New York ex rel. Rogers v. Graves, 299 U.S. 401, 57 S.Ct. 269, 81 L.Ed. 306, which sustained the claim that New York could not constitutionally tax the salary of an employee of the Penama Rail Road Company, a wholly-owned corporate instrumentality of the United States. We granted certiorari December 19, 1938, 305 U.S. 592, 59 S.Ct. 252, 83 L.Ed. -, the constitutional question presented by the record being of public importance.
The Home Owners' Loan Corporation was created pursuant to § 4(a) of the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 128, 12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq., 12 U.S.C.A. § 1461 et seq., which was enacted to provide emergency relief to home owners, particularly to assist them with respect to home mortgage indebtedness. The corporation, which is authorized to lend money to home owners on mortgages and to refinance home mortgage loans within the purview of the Act, is declared by § 4(a), 12 U.S.C.A. § 1463(a), to be an instrumentality of the United States. Its shares of stock are wholly government-owned. § 4(b). Its funds are deposited in the Treasury of the United States, and the compensation of its employees is paid by drafts upon the Treasury.
For the purposes of this case we may assume that the creation of the Home Owners' Loan Corporation was a constitutional exercise of the powers of the federal government. Cf. Kay v. United States, 303 U.S. 1, 58 S.Ct. 468, 82 L.Ed. 607. As that government derives its authority wholly from powers delegated to it by the Constitution, its every action within its constitutional power is governmental action, and since Congress is made the sole judge of what powers within the constitutional grant are to be exercised, all activities of government constitutionally authorized by Congress must stand on a parity with respect to their constitutional immunity from taxation. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 432, 4 L.Ed. 579; Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 158159, 6 S.Ct. 670, 674, 29 L.Ed. 845; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 451, 452, 26 S.Ct. 110, 112, 50 L.Ed. 261, 4 Ann.Cas. 737; Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, 412415, 58 S.Ct. 969, 971973, 82 L.Ed. 1427. And when the national government lawfully acts through a corporation which it owns and controls, those activities are governmental functions entitled to whatever tax immunity attaches to those functions when carried on by the government itself through its departments. See McCulloch v. Maryland, supra, pages 421, 422 of 4 Wheat.; Smith v. Kansas City Title Co., 255 U.S. 180, 208, 41 S.Ct. 243, 248, 65 L.Ed. 577; Federal Land Bank v. Crosland, 261 U.S. 374, 43 S.Ct. 385, 67 L.Ed. 703, 29 A.L.R. 1; New York ex rel. Rogers v. Graves, supra.
It is true that the silence of Congress, when it has authority to speak, may sometimes give rise to an implication as to the Congressional purpose. The nature and extent of that implication depend upon the nature of the Congressional power and the effect of its exercise. 1 But there is little scope for the application of that doctrine to the tax immunity of governmental instrumentalities. The constitutional immunity of either government from taxation by the other, where Congress is silent, has its source in an implied restriction upon the powers of the taxing government. So far as the implication rests upon the purpose to avoid interference with the functions of the taxed government or the imposition upon it of the economic burden of the tax, it is plain that there is no basis for implying a purpose of Congress to exempt the federal government or its agencies from tax burdens which are unsubstantial or which courts are unable to discern. Silence of Congress implies immunity no more than does the silence of the Constitution. It follows that when exemption from state taxation is claimed on the ground that the federal government is burdened by the tax, and Congress has disclosed no intention with respect to the claimed immunity, it is in order to consider the nature and effect of the alleged burden, and if it appears that there is no ground for implying a constitutional immunity, there is equally a want of any ground for assuming any purpose on the part of Congress to create an immunity.
In the four cases in which this Court has held that the salary of an officer or employee of one government or its instrumentality was immune from taxation by the other, it was assumed, without discussion, that the immunity of a government or its instrumentality extends to the salaries of its officers and employees. 2 This assumption, made with respect to the salary of a governmental officer in Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie County, 16 Pet. 435, 10 L.Ed. 1022, and in Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113, 20 L.Ed. 122, was later extended to confer immunity on income derived by a lessee from lands leased to him by a government in the performance of a governmental function, Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U.S. 501, 42 S.Ct. 171, 66 L.Ed. 338; Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 52 S.Ct. 443, 76 L.Ed. 815, and cases cited, although the claim of a like exemption from tax on the income of a contractor engaged in carrying out a government project was rejected both in the case of a contractor with a state, Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, supra, and of a contractor with the national government, James v. Dravo Contracting Co., supra.
The ultimate repudiation in Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., supra, of the doctrine that a tax on the income of a lessee derived from a lease of government owned or controlled lands is a forbidden interference with the activities of the government concerned led to the reexamination by this Court, in the Gerhardt case, of the theory underlying the asserted immunity from taxation by one government of salaries of employees of the other. It was there pointed out that the implied immunity of one government and its agencies from taxation by the other should, as a principle of constitutional construction, be narrowly restricted. For the expansion of the immunity of the one government correspondingly curtails the sovereign power of the other to tax, and where that immunity is invoked by the private citizen it tends to operate for his benefit at the expense of the taxing government and without corresponding benefit to the government in whose name the immunity is claimed. See Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, supra, pages 523, 524, 46 S.Ct. page 174; James v. Dravo Contracting Co., supra, pages 156158, 58 S.Ct. pages 219, 220. It was further pointed out that, as applied to the taxation of salaries of the employees of one government, the purpose of the immunity was not to confer benefits on the employees by relieving them from contributing their share of the financial support of the other government, whose benefits they enjoy, or to give an advantage to that government by enabling it to engage employees at salaries lower than those paid for like services by other employers, public or private, 3 but to prevent undue interference with the one government by imposing on it the tax burdens of the other.
In applying these controlling principles in the Gerhardt case the Court held that the salaries of employees of the New York Port Authority, a state instrumentality created by New York and New Jersey, were not immune from federal income tax, even though the Authority be regarded as not subject to federal taxation. It was said that the taxpayers enjoyed the benefit and protection of the laws of the United States and were under a duty, common to all citizens, to contribute financial support to the government; that the tax laid on their salaries and paid by them could be said to affect or burden their employer, the Port Authority, or the states creating it, only so far as the burden of the tax was economically passed on to the employer; that a non-discriminatory tax laid on the income of all members of the community could not be assumed to obstruct the function which New York and New Jersey had undertaken no perform, or to cast an economic burden upon them, more than does the general taxation of property and income which, to some extent, incapable of measurement by economists, may tend to raise the price level of labor and materials. 4 The Court concluded that the claimed immunity would do no more than relieve the taxpayers from the duty of financial support to the national government in order to secure to the state a theoretical advantage, speculative in character and measurement and too unsubstantial to form the basis of an implied constitutional immunity from taxation.
I join in the Court's opinion but deem it appropriate to add a few remarks. The volume of the Court's business has long since made impossible the early healthy practice whereby the Justices gave expression to individual opinions. 1 But the old tradition still has relevance when an important shift in constitutional doctrine is announced after a reconstruction in the membership of the Court. Such shifts of opinion should not derive from mere private judgment. They must be duly mindful of the necessary demands of continuity in civilized society. A reversal of a long current of decisions can be justified only if rooted in the Constitution itself as an historic document designed for a developing nation.
For one hundred and twenty years this Court has been concerned with claims of immunity from taxes imposed by one authority in our dual system of government because of the taxpayer's relation to the other. The basis for the Court's intervention in this field has not been any explicit provision of the Constitution. The States, after they formed the Union, continued to have the same range of taxing power which they had before, barring only duties affecting exports, imports, and on tonnage. 2 Congress, on the other hand, to lay taxes in order 'to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States', Art. 1, Sec. 8, U.S.C.A.Const., can reach every person and every dollar in the land with due regard to Constitutional limitations as to the method of laying taxes. But, as is true of other great activities of the state and national governments, the fact that we are a federalism raises problems regarding these vital powers of taxation. Since two governments have authority within the same territory, neither through its power to tax can be allowed to cripple the operations of the other. Therefore state and federal governments must avoid exactions which discriminate against each other or obviously interfere with one another's operations. These were the determining considerations that led the great Chief Justice to strike down the Maryland statute as an unambiguous measure of discrimination against the use by the United States of the Bank of the United States as one of its instruments of government.
The arguments upon which McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579, rested had their roots in actuality. But they have been distorted by sterile refinements unrelated to affairs. These refinements derived authority from an unfortunate remark in the opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland. Partly as a flourish of rhetoric and partly because the intellectual fashion of the times indulged a free use of absolutes, Chief Justice Marshall gave currency to the phrase that 'the power to tax involves the power to destroy.' Id., at page 431 of 4 Wheat. This dictum was treated as though it were a constitutional mandate. But not without protest. One of the most trenchant minds on the Marshall court, Justice William Johnson, early analyzed the dangerous inroads upon the political freedom of the States and the Union within their respective orbits resulting from a doctrinaire application of the generalities uttered in the course of the opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland. 3 The seductive cliche that the power to tax involves the power to destroy was fused with another assumption, likewise not to be found in the Constitution itself, namely the doctrine that the immunities are correlativebecause the existence of the national government implies immunities from state taxation, the existence of state governments implies equivalent immunities from federal taxation. When this doctrine was first applied Mr. Justice Bradley registered a powerful dissent, 4 the force of which gathered rather than lost strength with time. Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113, 128, 20.Ed. 122.
All these doctrines of intergovernmental immunity have until recently been moving in the realm of what Lincoln called 'pernicious abstractions'. The web of unreality spun from Marshall's famous dictum was brushed away by one stroke of Mr. Justice Holmes's pen: 'The power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits'. Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi, 277 U.S. 218, 223, 48 S.Ct. 451, 453, 72 L.Ed. 857, 56 A.L.R. 583 (dissent). Failure to exempt public functionaries from the universal duties of citizenship to pay for the costs of government was hypothetically transmuted into hostile action of one government against the other. A succession of decisions thereby withdrew from the taxing power of the States and Nation a very considerable range of wealth without regard to the actual workings of our federalism, 5 and this, too, when the financial needs of all governments began steadily to mount. These decisions have encountered increasing dissent. 6 In view of the powerful pull of our decisions upon the courts charged with maintaining the constitutional equilibrium of the two other great English federalisms, the Canadian and the Australian courts were at first inclined to follow the earlier doctrines of this Court regarding intergovernmental immunity. 7 Both the Supreme Court of Canada and the High Court of Australia on fuller considerationand for present purposes the British North America Act, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 63 & 64 Vict., c. 12, raise the same legal issues as does our Constitution 8 have completely rejected the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. 9 In this Court dissents have gradually become majority opinions, and even before the present decision the rationale of the doctrine had been undermined. 10
The judicial history of this doctrine of immunity is a striking illustration of an occasional tendency to encrust unwarranted interpretations upon the Constitution and thereafter to consider merely what has been judicially said about the Constitution, rather than to be primarily controlled by a fair conception of the Constitution. Judicial exegesis is unavoidable with reference to an organic act like our Constitution, drawn in many particulars with purposed vagueness so as to leave room for the unfolding future. But the ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it. 11 Neither Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie County, 16 Pet. 435, 10 L.Ed. 1022, and its offspring, nor Collector v. Day, supra, and its, can stand appeal to the Constitution and its historic purposes. Since both are the starting points of an interdependent doctrine, both should be, as I assume them to be, overruled this day. Whether Congress may, by express legislation, relieve its functionaries from their civic obligations to pay for the benefits of the State governments under which they live is matter for another day.
The failure of Congress to regulate interstate commerce has generally been taken to signify a Congressional purpose to leave undisturbed the authority of the states to make regulations affecting the commerce in matters of peculiarly local concern, but to withhold from them authority to make regulations affecting those phases of it which, because of the need of a national uniformity, demand that their regulation, if any, be prescribed by a single authority. Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299, 319, 13 L.Ed. 996; Minnesota Rate Cases, 230¢u.S. 352, 399, 400, 33 S.Ct. 729, 739, 57 L.Ed. 1511, 48 L.R.A.,N.S., 1151, Ann.Cas.1916A, 18; Kelly v. Washington, 302 U.S. 1, 14, 58 S.Ct. 87, 94, 82 L.Ed. 3; South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Brothers, 303 U.S. 177, 184, 185, 58 S.Ct. 510, 513, 82 L.Ed. 734; Milk Control Board v. Eisenberg Farm Products, 306 U.S. 346, 59 S.Ct. 528, 83 L.Ed. -, decided February 27, 1939. As to the implications from Congressional silence in the field of state taxation of interstate commerce and its instrumentalities, see Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U.S. 250, 58 S.Ct. 546, 82 L.Ed. 823, 115 A.L.R. 944; Gwin, White & Prince, Inc. v. Henneford, 305 U.S. 434, 59 S.Ct. 325, 83 L.Ed. 272, decided January 3, 1939.
That the economic burden of a tax on salaries is passed on to the employer or that employees will accept a lower government salary because of its tax immunity, are formulas which have not won acceptance by economists and cannot be judicially assumed. As to the 'passing on' of the economic burden of the tax, see Seligman, Income Tax, VII Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, 626 638; Plehn, Public Finance (5th Ed.), p. 320; Buehler, Public Finance, p. 240; Lutz, Public Finance (2d Ed.), p. 336, and see Indian Motocycle Co. v. United States, 283 U.S. 570, 581, footnote 1, 51 S.Ct. 601, 603, 75 L.Ed. 1277. As to preference for government employment because the salary is tax exempt, see Dickinson, Compensating Industrial Effort (1937), pp. 78; Douglas, The Reality of Non-Commercial Incentives in Industrial Life, c. V of The Trend of Economics (1924); Vol. I, Fetter, Economic Principles (1915), p. 203.
State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. Donald T. REGAN, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States.
ROCKFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE et al.
State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. James A. BAKER, III, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States.
Paul S. DAVIS, Appellant v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY.
CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Petitioner v. SIERRA SUMMIT, INC.
Henry HARPER, et al., Petitioners, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION.
Ernest FRY and Thelma Boehm, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.
UNITED STATES et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY OF FRESNO et al.
UNITED STATES v. BURNISON et al. UNITED STATES v. GAYETTY et al.
Commonwealth of MASSACHUSETTS, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH et al. v. VAN COTT.
O'MALLEY v. WOODROUGH et ux.
PITTMAN v. HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, D.C.
INLAND WATERWAYS CORPORATION et al. v. YOUNG.
UNITED STATES v. SUMMERLIN.
SUPERIOR BATH HOUSE CO. v. McCARROLL, Com'r of Revenues for State of Arkansas.
FEDERAL LAND BANK OF ST. PAUL v. BISMARCK LUMBER CO. et al.
PENN DAIRIES, Inc., et al. v. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION OF PENNSYLVANIA.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Appellant v. WYOMING et al.
UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. NEW MEXICO, et al.
UNITED STATES of America and Borg-Warner Corporation (Detroit Gear Division), Appellants, v. CITY OF DETROIT, a Municipal Corporation.
SMITH v. ALLWRIGHT, Election Judge, et al.
KERN-LIMERICK Inc., et al. v. SCURLOCK, Com'r of Revenues for State of Arkansas.
FIRST AGRICULTURAL NATIONAL BANK OF BERKSHIRE COUNTY, Appellant, v. STATE TAX COMMISSION.
DAMERON v. BRODHEAD.
Edgar B. SIMS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America.
FELDMAN v. UNITED STATES.
STATE OF NEW YORK et al. v. UNITED STATES.
UNITED STATES et al., Appellants, v. B. J. BOYD, Commissioner.
FEDERAL LAND BANK OF WICHITA, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF KIOWA, STATE OF KANSAS, et al.
The NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES et al., Appellants, v. W. J. USERY, Jr., Secretary of Labor. State of CALIFORNIA, Appellant, v. W. J. USERY, Jr., Secretary of Labor.