Court Opinion

ID: 9602949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:01:47.232283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:07.457478
License: Public Domain

TAYLOR, Justice
(dissenting)'.
A further study of the issues involved, prompted by the petition for rehearing, impels me to the conclusion that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed. My adherence to the original opinion was induced by the introductory provisions of section 4, chapter 178, of the 1941 Session Laws, which recites that chapter 24 of title 61, I.C.A., is amended by the addition thereto of the section, which is now 63-3022, I.C. That chapter included section 61-2412, I.C.A., which is now section 63-3013, I.C. So the reference to statutes amended includes 63-3013, I.C. However, that is as far as such reasoning will permit one to go. The express reference in section 63-3022, I.C., is to the method of determining “gross income” in section 63-3019, I.C. A reference to this section indicates that it is concerned with the allocation of various deductions to income from sources within and without the state, expressing clearly the purpose of the legislature to apply the same rules for determining the apportionment of such deduc*13tions to both resident and nonresident taxpayers. Both sections deal with “gross income.” Whereas, section 63-3013, which defines gross income, unequivocally eliminates income for personal services from sources outside the state from “gross income.”
This exemption was enacted at the same session of the legislature which amended the entire chapter by adding section 63-3022. Although the amendment was subsequent in time to the enactment of the exemption, I find nothing in the language of ■either provision to indicate any intention to limit or modify the unqualified terms of the ■exemption expressed in subsection (b)7. A study of these three sections manifests ■clearly that what the legislature intended to do in amending the chapter by the addition of section 63-3022, was to provide a •method of prorating and allocating proper deductions in the case of a resident taxpayer having income from sources both in and out of the state, and not to limit the •exemption, or modify the definition of gross income, contained in section 63-3013, I.C. Putting it another way, it was not intended •to tax the income exempted by subsection (b)7, but to make that income bear its fair ■share of the deductible expenses which the taxpayer might claim. I think that was all •that section 63-3022, I.C., was intended to accomplish. This conclusion is confirmed by subsection 4, par. e of section 63-3019, and by the provisions of section 63-3015, I.C., both of which provide certain consequential penalties for failure of the taxpayer to fully disclose all income not returned for tax purposes, and for failure to supply all information deemed necessary by the commissioner “for the calculation of such deductions and credits.” This is a clear indication of the intention, of the legislature not to tax income from sources outside the state, but to require the taxpayer to disclose such income and furnish other information necessary to the calculation and apportionment of his claimed deductions and credits.
KEETON, J., concurs.