Opinion ID: 2095608
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Does a Court of Equity Have Jurisdiction To Entertain This Action?

Text: The resolution of this question requires a clear understanding of the nature of the present action. The Company seeks to restrain the appropriate officials of the Commonwealth from the enforcement of a tax statute which, it is alleged, violates both the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This action raises no question of an over-assessment or an improper exemption in connection with the tax nor does it challenge any of the mechanics involved in the calculation of the tax; on the contrary, it directly attacks the constitutionality of the tax statute and the want of power in the legislature to levy such a tax. This question is not novel. In Bell Telephone Company v. Driscoll, supra, p. 112, this Court said: We have no doubt about the right of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County in the exercise of its equitable powers to entertain a bill to enjoin an administrative agency of the Commonwealth from exercising powers not conferred on it or unconstitutionally conferred on it. That point has been decided too frequently to be longer in doubt : [citing cases]. (Emphasis supplied). In Jamison Coal & Coke Co. v. Unity Township School District, 362 Pa. 389, 66 A. 2d 759, we said: It is too well settled for argument that equity will enjoin taxation for want of power to tax [citing cases]. (p. 392). In English v. Robinson Township School District 358 Pa. 45, 55, 55 A. 2d 803, we said: . . . it has long been settled in this Commonwealth that a plaintiff may go into equity to restrain attempted taxation for want of power to tax . . . . See also: Martin v. Baldy, supra; Germantown Trust Co. v. Powell, supra; Kelley v. Baldwin, supra; Kelley v. Kalodner, supra; Turco Paint & Varnish Co. v. Kalodner, supra; American Stores v. Boardman, supra; Bell Telephone Co. v. Driscoll, supra; Sablosky v. Messner, supra; Shirks Motor Express Corp. v. Messner, supra; Roy Stone Transfer Corp. v. Messner, supra; Commonwealth v. Dauphin County, 354 Pa. 556, 563, 47 A. 2d 807; Western Pennsylvania Hospital v. Lichliter, 340 Pa. 382, 392, 17 A. 2d 206; York Railways Co. v. Driscoll, 331 Pa. 193, 196, 200 A. 864. Dougherty v. Philadelphia, 314 Pa. 298, 301, 171 A. 583, notes the distinction between situations where equity does and does not have jurisdiction in tax cases: Equity has jurisdiction to restrain attempted taxation for total want of power . . .: [citing cases]. But, where the power to tax appears, and the complaint is over-assessment, or inadequate exemption, the remedy is by appeal to the [court of] common pleas from the action of the board of revision: [citing cases]. (Emphasis supplied). In Wynnefield United Presbyterian Church v. City of Philadelphia, 348 Pa. 252, 253, 35 A. 2d 276, we stated: A distinction has been taken between the cases in which over-assessment or inadequate exemption has been alleged and the cases in which the property owner denies the power to levy any tax. In the former, it has been held that the remedy is by appeal from the assessment, as the statute provides, and not in equity; in the latter, equity affords the remedy: [citing cases]. (Emphasis supplied) Very recently, Mr. Justice COHEN, speaking for this Court, in Y.M.C.A. v. Reading, 402 Pa. 592, 598, 167 A. 2d 469, after an extensive review of the pertinent authorities, reached the following conclusion: We conclude, therefore, that absent a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute or of official action thereunder, equity has no jurisdiction to restrain the collection of taxes . . . . (Emphasis supplied) See also: Universal Film Exchanges v. Board of Finance and Revenue, 409 Pa. 180, 191, 185 A. 2d 542. In view of the fact that this action attacks the validity and the constitutionality of the statute which levies this tax, there can be no question as to equity's jurisdiction to entertain this action.