Court Opinion

ID: 9644986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:09:44.702087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:21.051236
License: Public Domain

*320Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Coi-ien :
I concur in the result reached by the majority.
In Danyluk v. Johnstown, 406 Pa. 427, 430-31, 178 A. 2d 609, 611 (1962), we took care to point out that if the tax there involved were regarded as an excise tax upon the privilege of engaging in an occupation — as we have considered the tax in the instant case to be — it would violate the uniformity provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution since it was only imposed upon the occupations of nonresidents and not upon the occupations of residents. We stated in that case: “Finally, even if the tax were truly an excise tax upon the privilege of engaging in occupations within City . . . much the same conclusions follow except that the unjustified distinction would be between occupations of residents and those of non-residents rather than between the residency or non-residency status of the individuals themselves.”
Thus, it was clearly implied in Danyluk that a flat rate1 excise or privilege tax could be imposed if it applied equally to the occupations of residents and nonresidents. Since the majority has properly decided that the instant tax is an occupation tax, and since this tax was applied equally to all individuals engaged in an occupation within the City of Allentown, I also conclude that the ordinance is a valid tax enactment.

 Subsection (h) of the 1961 Amendment to the Act of June 25, 1947, P. L. 1145, §1, 53 P.S. §6851 E, authorized and limited such tax by stating: “Elat rate occupation and occupational privilege taxes not using a millage [sic] or percentage as a basis, $10.”