Court Opinion

ID: 9812142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:37:21.458607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:20.180405
License: Public Domain

Seawell, J.,
dissenting: I dissent on tbe ground that tbe taxing statute refers throughout to a located business and not to tbe type of transactions described in tbe opinion. Any other construction, applied to tbe State tax, would lead to an absurd situation — would result in double, triple, and multiple taxation, although be bad but one place of business. It would leave tbe schedule set out in tbe Act without meaning. Tbe power of tbe city to tax is expressly referred to tbe State levy, and is limited to tbe same condition — tbe presence of a located business. Tbe statute uses terms of physical measurement. Tbe city authorities recognized this as tbe proper construction in their ordinance imposing tbe tax. Under tbe reasonable interpretation of tbe statute — without straining at tbe bolts — tbe city is not authorized to tax a business located beyond its boundaries.
Tbe effect of tbe decisions is to build up another of those trade barriers which experts in tbe commercial field point out as one of tbe major curses of this country. Its principle and effect is that of a local protection tariff, with multiplied opportunities of retaliation. I have no idea that tbe Legislature intended to enact a law of such extensive application, or to adopt a policy so retrogressive.
SohbNCK, J., concurs in this opinion.