Document: 365 U.S. 517 81 S.Ct. 719 5 L.Ed.2d 749 LAURENS FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Petitioner,v.SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION et al. No. 126. Argued March 2, 1961. Decided 20, Mr. Frank K. Sloan, Columbia, S.C., for petitioner. James M. Windham, respondents. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The question presented is whether State South Carolina has power to require a Federal Savings and Loan Association located in that pay documentary stamp taxes on promissory notes executed by favor Home Bank cover loans from Association. 2 Petitioner organized under Owners' Act 19331 doing business Laurens, Carolina. It also member, with borrowing privileges, Greensboro, North Carolina, which was established 1932.2 For purpose making mortgage money available community it serves, petitioner since August 12, 1953, secured 'advances,' or loans, Greensboro totalling $5,675,000, written as required 1932 Act. assessed against these $2,270 state statute imposing tax at rate four cents each $100.3 paid protest then brought present action court refund payment,4 claiming imposition constituted an unlawful attempt 'advances' violation provision exempting such banks taxation. This states, pertinent part: 3 'The bank, including its franchise, capital, reserves, surplus, advances, income, shall be exempt all taxation now hereafter imposed United States * any *.' 12 U.S.C. § 1433, U.S.C.A. 1433. (Emphasis supplied.) 4 Supreme Court affirmed judgment upholding State's taxing power, basing affirmance two grounds.5 opinion, first, exemption Act, although completely taxation, did not securing because were upon rather than lending this reason should considered Bank's within meaning provision. Secondly, held regardless original scope exemption, implicitly repealed transactions like one 1933. We granted certiorari order determine forbidden Congress.6 first immunity broad enough bar loan transaction. decided very similar Pittman v. Corp., 308 21, 60 15, 84 L.Ed. 11. There Maryland recording mortgages 10 $100 principal amount indebtedness. Corporation sought record payment ordinary fee without additional tax. had been issued security made defunct provisions Section 4(c) provided '(t)he Corporation, loans' 'from State' exept real estate taxes. unanimously holding provision, practically identical language substance precluded application Corporation. 6 case, drawing no distinction between terms 'loans' nevertheless thought decision inapplicable here case lender itself (the Corporation) while association Bank). distinctly said Pittman, however, fact 'no determining significance,' our being "whoever pays what law States."7 went recognize 'critical term construed covering entire process lending, debts result therefrom given security.'8 same synonymous 'advances'9 equally broad. factors weight deciding covered transaction are here. consideration there 'be duly recorded home mortgage' just requires advances note obligation borrower. Here, we therefore, documents taxed 'were indispensable elements operations authorized Congress'10 protection institution. 'graded according loan'11 too face value measure 7 While breadth thus persuasively answered reasoning conclusion called legislative history whole. set up system federally chartered Banks purpose, stated House Senate Committee Reports, placing 'long-term funds hands local institutions' alleviate pressing need owners 'low-cost, long-term, installment money' 'decrease costs 'resulting benefit ownership form lower more liberal loans.'12 end authorizes make eligible borrower institutions 'upon obligation' primarily homes.13 obviously keeping Act's over-all policy low cost owners. Regardless who issue, necessary effect increase obtaining used In impact, tax, nominally petitioner, bound contravene basic Congress insulating hold error construe integral part transactions. 8 leaves court's that, instances where conferred impliedly based following 1933 Act: 9 '* (N)o authority impose associations their income greater other mutual cooperative thrift financing institutions.' 1464(h), 1464(h). unequivocally bars discriminatory Associations. prohibition nondiscriminatory Associations, thereby extent repealing exemption. agree enacting 1464(h) not, either expressly impliedly, repeal exempted Clearly express providing repeal, significant when superseded they implication.14 would difficult think less apt circumstances finding implied repeal. These Acts, both designed provide easy credit cost, passed year basis hearings read together consistent scheme contributes major low-cost precisely before passage Nor even intimation intention reduce status Banks. Indeed, only comment seem have bearing matter statement Reports new means 'direct relief owners' 'otherwise disturb(ing) functioning home-loan bank system.'15 Moreover, construction permit bring about incongruous result. still barred state-chartered association.16 To contend allows Associations similarly urge kind emphatically prohibits. And surely unwarranted concerns eliminating 11 reasons, sensible well natural left unimpaired therefore reversed cause remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. Reversed remanded. 48 Stat. 128, §§ 1461—1468, 1461 1468. 47 725, 1421—1449, 1421 1449. Code Laws 65—688 (1952). Such suits 65—2662 236 S.C. 112 S.E.2d 716. 364 812, 47, 45. page 31, 17, citing Land New Orleans Crosland, 261 374, 378—379, 43 385, 386—387, 67 703. 17. throughout reference but merely represents congressional choice synonyms, indicated Senator Reed introducing floor amendment added word provision: 'Mr. Reed. course, put position taxable several States.' 75 Cong.Rec. 14659. 32, H.R.Rep. 1418, 72d Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 8—10; S.Rep. 837, 9—11. 13 1429—1430b, 1429—1430b. 14 See 129; 55, 73d p. 1; 91, 1. 15 see R.Rep. 16 does way depend Association, evident come into existence until

Category: 7