Court Opinion

ID: 9623967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:47:31.998947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:37.362276
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Moore
dissenting.
I am unable to agree with the majority opinion in this case, the effect of which is to permit the assessment of an advalorem tax upon the moneys expended in payment of excise taxes paid to the Government of the United States and the State of Colorado. The excise tax imposed by the United States Government upon distilled spirits is a maximum of $9.00 per gallon, and a similar tax levied by the State of Colorado is $1.60 per gallon.
In order to validate an ad valorem tax upon these federal and state taxes, the majority opinion concludes *109that the payment of the excise taxes amounts to the investment of moneys in merchandise, under chapter 142, section 54, ’35 C.S.A. The said statute provides: “In ascertaining the amount of moneys of any taxpayer, or the moneys by such taxpayer invested in merchandise or in manufactures, the assessor shall ascertain the average amount during the fiscal year * * (Italics ours.) The opinion, in effect, holds that this “investment” in taxes is subject to the payment of this ad valorem tax.
It is my belief that an excise stamp placed upon liquor is simply evidence of a tax already paid and represents no investment whatever “in merchandise or in manufactures,” but in fact represents only the payment of taxes which government levies for its own support. The excise stamps are receipts for taxes paid and should not be made the basis for increasing the valuation of the merchandise itself for purposes of ad valorem taxation. Although it is true that the payment of the tax by the dealer must of necessity be taken into account in determining a price for which the liquor may be sold at a profit, this fact does not in any manner change the character of the investment originally made when the excise taxes were paid. The payment of taxes does not amount to an investment in merchandise. I consider it manifestly unfair to countenance increased ad valorem taxes by adding, to the actual value of the merchandise itself, the amount of excise taxes paid thereon.
Stripped to its essentials, the majority opinion approves a tax upon a tax, or a property tax assessed against the amount paid out of pocket in the form of an excise tax. To this result I cannot give assent.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Holland concurs in this dissent.