Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/293/214/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-09-21 05:04:38
Document Index: 585701899

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 212', '§ 21', '§ 212', '§ 21', 'Art. 88', 'Art. 643', 'Art. 643', '§ 1', '§ 25', '§ 1']

HELVERING V. POWERS, 293 U. S. 214 - Volume 293 - 1934 - Full Text - US Supreme Court Center - USSC Cases - Nolo
US Supreme Court Center > Volume 293 > HELVERING V. POWERS, 293 U. S. 214 (1934) > Full Text
HELVERING V. POWERS, 293 U. S. 214 (1934)
Helvering v. Powers
Argued October 12, 15, 1934
1. The provision of the Revenue Acts of 1926, §§ 212(a), 213(a), and 1928, §§ 21, 22(a), for taxing income derived "from compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid," is broad enough to embrace the compensation of state officers if not constitutionally immune. P. 293 U. S. 224.
2. A Treasury Regulation cannot limit this statutory provision or define the boundaries of its constitutional application. Id.
3. Constitutional immunity of the compensation of a state officer from federal taxation is not a necessary result of his being a state officer; it depends upon the nature of the political activities assigned to him, and upon whether they come within the fundamental reason for denying federal authority to tax -- viz., necessary protection of the independence of national and state governments in their respective spheres in our constitutional system. P. 293 U. S. 224.
4. One of the limitations of the principle of tax immunity as between the state and national governments is that the State cannot withdraw sources of revenue from the federal taxing power by engaging in businesses which go beyond usual governmental functions and to which, by reason of their nature, the federal taxing power would normally extend. P. 293 U. S. 225.
5. The fact that the State has power to undertake such enterprises, and that they are undertaken for what the State conceives to be the public benefit, does not establish immunity. Id.
6. In operating a street railway, whether permanently or for a limited time, the State is undertaking a business enterprise of a sort that is normally within the reach of the federal taxing power and is distinct from the usual governmental functions that are immune from federal taxation in order to safeguard the necessary independence of the State. P. 293 U. S. 227.
7. If a business undertaken by a State is not immune from a federal excise tax upon its operations, the compensation of those who conduct it for the State is not exempt from a federal income tax. P. 293 U. S. 227.
Page 293 U. S. 215
8. A street railway company and its properties, including a reserve fund, are taken over by the State, to be publicly operated and managed for a limited period of time, pursuant to a special Act of the Legislature agreed to by the company. The operations during that period are to be under the exclusive control of a board of trustees, who are officers of the State specially appointed for the purpose, and the management is to be such that the cost of the venture, including operating expenditures, upkeep, and other charges against income and surplus, with dividends agreed to be paid on the company's stock, shall be met by the income; but if there are deficits, these are to be paid by the State and assessed against the towns and cities along the railway. At the end of the period, the properties are to be restored to the company in good condition and the fund undiminished. The salaries of the trustees, fixed by the statute, are payable by the company -- part of the costs of operation. As incidents of the main purpose, the trustees have exclusive authority to regulate and fix the fares and to ascertain any losses incurred, which are to be borne by the State.
Held, that the salaries of the trustees are not constitutionally immune from income tax under the Federal Revenue Acts of 1926 and 1928.
68 F.2d 634 reversed.
Certiorari, 292 U.S. 620, to review a judgment reversing a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals sustaining a deficiency assessment of income tax.
Page 293 U. S. 220
The question presented is whether the compensation of the members of the board of trustees of the Boston Elevated Railway Company is constitutionally exempt from the imposition of a federal income tax. Immunity is sought upon the ground that the trustees are officers of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and instrumentalities of its government. The Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals, held in favor of the exemption. 26 B.T.A. 1381; 68 F.2d 634. We granted a writ of certiorari. 292 U.S. 620.
Chapter 159 of the Massachusetts Special Acts, 1918, provides for the public operation of the Boston Elevated Railway Company. The Act creates a board of five trustees, to be appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Council, for the term of ten years. The Act provides that the trustees shall be sworn before entering upon their duties; they shall own no stock or other securities of the company, and shall each receive from the company $5,000 annually as compensation for his services. They are subject to removal by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Council.
The trustees are charged with the duty of managing and operating the company and its properties for the period, as stated or extended, of public operation, and, to that end, are to have "possession of said properties in behalf
Page 293 U. S. 221
of the Commonwealth." Except as otherwise stated, they are to exercise all the powers of the company, being empowered in their discretion to appoint and remove the president and other officers of the company, except the directors. The trustees are authorized "to regulate and fix fares" and to "determine the character and extent of the service and facilities to be furnished." Their authority for this purpose is made "exclusive," and is not "subject to the approval, control or direction of any other state board or commission." The act provides that the trustees and their employees shall be deemed to be acting as agents of the company and not of the Commonwealth, and that the company shall be liable for their acts and negligence to the same extent as if they were in the immediate employ of the company, but that the trustees shall not be personally liable.
The company was required, on or before its acceptance of the Act, to raise a stated amount by the issue of preferred stock in order to provide for the improvement of the property of the company and the establishment of a reserve fund. The trustees are to fix such rates of fare as will reasonably insure sufficient income to meet the cost of service, as defined, which, in addition to operating expenditures, outlays for the required upkeep of the properties, and other amounts chargeable against income and surplus, includes fixed dividends on the preferred stock and dividends on the common stock at specified rates. Surplus income is to be transferred to the reserve fund and that fund is to be used to meet deficiencies. If it is insufficient for that purpose, the trustees are required to notify the treasurer and receiver general of the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth is to pay the amount of the deficit ascertained according to the act. Amounts thus paid are to be assessed upon the several cities and towns in which the company operates. Provision is
Page 293 U. S. 222
made for reimbursement out of subsequent surplus income. The Act contemplates the maintenance of the property in good operating condition and the restoration of the reserve fund, if depleted, to its original amount on the expiration of the period of public management. At that time, the control of the property is to revert to the company. It may then collect such reasonable fares as will produce an income sufficient to pay the reasonable cost of the service as defined in the Act, including specified dividends on the common stock, and the company is then to be subject to public regulation in such manner as may be determined by the general court, but not so as to reduce the income below the cost of the service as stated.
The tax in question was on the compensation received by the trustees for the years 1926 to 1929. It appears that, in 1919, the Commonwealth paid to the company nearly $4,000,000 as a deficiency resulting from the public operation, and that, in subsequent years, up to and including 1929, the income received was not sufficient for full reimbursement.
The validity of the statute has been sustained as one enacted for a public purpose and providing for the management of the enterprise by the Commonwealth. Boston v. Treasurer & Receiver General, 237 Mass. 403, 413, 420, 130 N.E. 390, 392; Boston v. Jackson, 260 U. S. 309, 260 U. S. 314, 260 U. S. 316. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has characterized the "public operation" as "undertaken by the Commonwealth not as a source of profit, but solely for the general welfare." Boston v. Treasurer and Receiver General, supra. The trustees are the administrative agents of the Commonwealth in this enterprise, and we may assume, as the Circuit Court of Appeals has held, that the trustees come within the general category of "public officers" by virtue of their appointment by the
Page 293 U. S. 223
Governor, with the advice and consent of the Council, and their tenure and duties fixed by law. * United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385, 73 U. S. 393; Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U. S. 514, 269 U. S. 520. See Opinion of the Justices, 261 Mass., pp. 542, 543, 550, 159 N.E. 55.
While the undertaking is for the public benefit, it is still a particular business enterprise -- the operation of a street railway -- and the functions of the trustees are limited accordingly. The property remains in private ownership. The Act, accepted by the company, constitutes in substance an agreement between the company and the Commonwealth that the latter shall temporarily take over the management and operation and pay specified amounts by way of compensation. While the Commonwealth may be called upon to bear losses that may occur, if the fares as fixed prove to be insufficient, the operation by the trustees is intended to be self-sustaining. The transportation service is to be rendered, as respondents' counsel say, "under such a flexible system of ratemaking as would allow the fixing of fares equal, as nearly as might be, to the cost of service." The compensation of the trustees is undoubtedly a part of that cost. "The main design of the Act," as stated by the Supreme Judicial Court,
"is public operation of the railway company at such rates of fare to be fixed by the trustees from time to time as shall afford revenue sufficient to defray all charges and the dividends established by the Act."
Boston v. Treasurer and Receiver General, supra. The authority given to the trustees "to regulate and fix fares," and
Page 293 U. S. 224
the further authority to ascertain such losses as may be incurred, which are to be borne by the Commonwealth, are both incident to that main purpose.
The immunity sought by the trustees from payment of the federal income tax has not been granted by the Congress. The definitions of income in the federal income tax acts cover income derived from "compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid." Revenue Act of 1926, §§ 212(a), 213(a); Revenue Act 1928, §§ 21, 22(a). This language is certainly broad enough to embrace the compensation of the trustees, and the immunity, if it exists, must rest upon constitutional limitation. The Treasury Regulations, manifestly in an effort to interpret and apply that limitation, provide for exemption from taxation of compensation paid by a state or political subdivision to its officers and employees only in case their services are rendered "in connection with the exercise of an essential governmental function." Treas.Reg. No. 69, Art. 88; No. 74, Art. 643; No. 77, Art. 643. But the Treasury Department could not, by its regulation, either limit the provisions of the statute or define the boundaries of their constitutional application.
We come, then, to the question whether the Congress has the constitutional power to impose an income tax upon the compensation of public officers of the character here involved. We do not regard that question as answered by mere terminology. The roots of the constitutional restriction strike deeper than that. The term "public office" undoubtedly implies a definite assignment of public activity, fixed by appointment, tenure, and duties. But whether that field of activity, in relation to a state, carries immunity from federal taxation is a question which compels consideration of the nature of the Activity, apart from the mere creation of offices for conducting it, and of the fundamental reason for denying
Page 293 U. S. 225
federal authority to tax. That reason, as we have frequently said, is found in the necessary protection of the independence of the national and state governments within their respective spheres under our constitutional system. Collector v. Day, 11 Wall 113, 78 U. S. 125-127; Ambrosini v. United States, 187 U. S. 1, 187 U. S. 7; Indian Motocycle Co. v. United States, 283 U. S. 570, 283 U. S. 575. The principle of immunity thus has inherent limitations. Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, supra, pp. 269 U. S. 522-524; Willcuts v. Bunn, 282 U. S. 216, 282 U. S. 225-226; Indian Motocycle Co. v. United States, supra, p. 283 U. S. 576; Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U. S. 123, 286 U. S. 128; Board of Trustees v. United States, 289 U. S. 48, 289 U. S. 59. And one of these limitations is that the state cannot withdraw sources of revenue from the federal taxing power by engaging in businesses which constitute a departure from usual governmental functions and to which, by reason of their nature, the federal taxing power would normally extend. The fact that the state has power to undertake such enterprises, and that they are undertaken for what the state conceives to be the public benefit, does not establish immunity. South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 220 U. S. 172; Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U. S. 151, 213 U. S. 173; Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, supra; Indian Motocycle Co. v. United States, supra; Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U. S. 360, 292 U. S. 368-369. The necessary protection of the independence of the state government is not deemed to go so far.
In South Carolina v. United States, supra, the state undertook to establish a monopoly of the sale of intoxicating liquors and prohibited the sale except to dispensaries to be operated by the state. The dispensers had no interest in the sales, and received no profit from them. The question was whether the dispensers were relieved from liability for the internal revenue tax prescribed by the Congress for dealers in intoxicating liquors because the
Page 293 U. S. 226
dispensers were agents of the state, which, in the exercise of its sovereign power, had taken charge of the business. While the court recognized the power of the state to undertake the enterprise, the exemption was denied, as the state could not, by engaging in a business of that sort, withdraw it from the taxing power which the Constitution vested in the national government. Murray v. Wilson Distilling Company, supra.
The Court reached a similar conclusion in the recent case of Ohio v. Helvering, supra, where the state had established a department of liquor control and sought an injunction to restrain the enforcement of federal statutes imposing taxes upon dealers in intoxicating liquors. The state sought to distinguish the case of South Carolina because, in Ohio, "the state-owned stores" were operated by civil service employees of the state government, and hence the question was said to concern the taxation of the state itself. The argument was unavailing, and the Court rested its ruling upon the broad ground that, when the state becomes a dealer in intoxicating liquors, it falls within the reach of the tax as one validly imposed by the federal statute.
The method which the state may adopt in organizing such an activity cannot be regarded as determinative. If the dealers in South Carolina, or those employed to operate the state stores in Ohio, had been denominated public officers, and, as such, had been assigned definite tenure and duties, the same result would have been reached, as the principle involved would be equally applicable. Nor, in such a case, would the fact that the officers were intrusted with the authority to fix prices for the sales under their charge in a manner appropriately to secure the revenue needed for the enterprise, or were charged with the duty of ascertaining the losses which, if they occurred, were to be borne by general taxation, establish a material distinction.
Page 293 U. S. 227
The nature of the enterprise, and not the particular incidents of its management, would control.
* The provision of § 1 of chapter 159 of the Massachusetts Special Acts of 1918 that the trustees shall not be considered public officers within the meaning of § 25 of chapter 514 of the Acts of 1909, and that § 1 of chapter 7 of the Revised Laws shall not apply to the trustees, creates special limitations of such a nature as not to derogate from their general status. See Opinion of the Justices, 261 Mass., p. 543, 159 N.E. 55.
Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: HELVERING V. POWERS, 293 U. S. 214 (1934)