Court Opinion

ID: 9851466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:13:12.148612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:56.904669
License: Public Domain

Almand, Justice,
concurring. I concur in all that is said in the majority opinion, but wish to add one further reason as to why I am of the opinion that the judgment is correct.
Taking the entire act as a whole in endeavoring to find the intention of the legislature, it is apparent that the over-all intention of the legislature was to tax long term notes secured by real estate, and that, when this recording tax was paid, whether the debt thereby secured falls due 3 years and 1 day from the date thereof, or 20 years, the owner was relieved from the payment of any other tax of any kind, nature, or description. Section 13 of Part 1 of the act expressly provides that, when this recording tax is paid on account of long term notes secured by real estate, such shall be exclusive of all other taxes thereon, and “such intangible property shall not be taxed in any other manner by the State, or any county or municipality of the State, nor shall the owner or holder thereof be required to pay any other tax thereon.” It is plainly evident from this pro*627vision that, when a building and loan association returns its net worth at its full market value to the taxing authority under Part 2 of the act, the amount of its long term notes secured by real estate would not be computed as a part of its net worth, because, having paid the recording tax, such long term notes would not be subject to further taxation. This provision of the act thereby nullifies the contention on the part of the building and loan association that the same property is doubly taxed.' As I view it, this construction does not impose any undue hardship on the plaintiff in error, but actually operates to its benefit, for the reason that, when it pays the recording tax on a long term note secured by real estate, it is relieved from paying any further taxes during the life of the secured debt, but if the plaintiff in .error is relieved from paying the recording tax, it is inescapable that it would have to include such long term note as a part of its net worth, whereby it would have to pay a tax annually during the life of the debt. It thus seems to me that the construction which the majority of the court places upon this act operates to the benefit of the plaintiff iti error rather than to its detriment.