Court Opinion

ID: 9418905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:42:56.273208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:12.864859
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Butler,
dissenting..
The tax is on income. I am of opinion that the rents received by appellant for the use of real estate in New Jersey may not be included in her taxable income. By *318our decisions it is established that a tax on income received for the use of land is in legal effect a tax upon the land itself. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 580-581; 158 U. S. 601, 627-628, 637. Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264, 274. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 80-82. McCoach v. Minehill & S. H. R. Co., 228 U. S. 295, 306. Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399, 414. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 16. Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 205. Evans v. Gore, 253 U. S. 245, 260. Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U. S. 501, 505. Lake Superior Iron Mines v. Lord, 271 U. S. 577, 581-582. Senior v. Braden, 295 U. S. 422, 427, 429, 431-432.
New Jersey, in addition to tax on the land measured by its value, may lay a tax upon the income received by the owner for its use. Lake Superior Iron Mines v. Lord, ubi supra.
Appellant’s right to own, or to collect rents in New Jersey for the use of, lands in that State was not given and is not protected by New York law. Neither of these rights is enjoyed in New York or has any relation to appellant’s privilege of residence in, or to the protection of, that State. Ability of taxpayers to pay may be taken into account for apportionment of the tax burdens that it is authorized to impose. But the financial means of those to be taxed cannot be made to generate for the State power to tax lands, or rents -paid for use of lands, beyond its borders. I would exclude the item.
Me. Justice McReynolds concurs in this opinion.