Court Opinion

ID: 9674635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:32:21.492261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:28.738380
License: Public Domain

HUGHES, Justice
(concurring).
Appellant is a state bank. Its principal competitor is a national bank.
*163Appellant and its competitor each paid similar ad valorem taxes on real estate and ad valorem taxes based on actual value of its capital stock less the realty ad valorem taxes.
In addition, appellant paid $2,579.45 franchise taxes to the State. Its competitor, the national bank, had it been similarly taxed would have paid the State $6,000.00.
Both appellant and its competitor are in the banking business. It is obvious that appellant competes with the national bank under a severe handicap. The Legislature has the power to rectify the disadvantage under which state banks compete with national banks. The Courts do not have such power. I write this opinion merely to point up the existing inequitable condition.
I concur in the affirmance.