Page images
PDF
EPUB

too its value, to be ascertained as provided by law. The word "property," as used in this article and section, is hereby declared to include moneys, credits, bonds, stocks, dues, franchises, and all other matters and things, real, personal, and mixed, capable of private ownership; provided, that property used for free public libraries and free museums, growing crops, property used exclusively for public schools, and such as may belong to the United States, this state, or to any county or municipal corporation within this state, shall be exempt from taxation. The legislature may provide, except in case of credits secured by mortgage or trust deed, for a deduction from credits of debts due to bona fide residents of this state, [Amendment adopted November 6, 1894.]

For exemption of church property, see section 112 of this article, post.

Legislative History:

The words “property used for free public libraries and free museums" were added by the amendment of 1894. The parallel provision in the Constitution of 1849 is section 13 of article XI, as follows: “Sec. 13. • Taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the state. All property in this state shall be taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascertained as directed by law; but assessors and collectors of town, county, and state taxes shall be elected by the qualified electors of the district, county, or town in which the property taxed for state, county, or town purposes is situated.”

Section Cited.

The following citations of the section relate to corporations: Burke v. Badlam, 57 Cal. 600; S. V. W. W. v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 108; Security Sav. Bank v. Hinton, 97 Cal. 220, 32 Pac. 3; Farmers' etc. Bank v. Board of Equalization, 97 Cal. 324, 32 Pac. 312; Mackay v. S. F., 113 Cal. 397, 45 Pac. 696; McHenry v. Downer, 116 Cal. 23, 47 Pac. 779; Germania Trust Co. v. San Francisco, 128 Cal. 592, 61 Pac. 178; Estate of Fair, 128 Cal. 612, 61 Pac. 184; San Francisco v. La Societe etc., 131 Cal. 613, 63 Pac. 1016.

Annotation.

Property.-Bonds of foreign corporations are assessable in the state of the owner's domicile. (Estate of Fair, 128 Cal. 607, 61 Pac. 184; Mackay v. San Francisco, 128 Cal. 678, 61 Pac. 382.)

A seat in a stock exchange board is not taxable property. (San Francisco v. Anderson, 103 Cal. 69, 42 Am. St. Rep. 98, 36 Pac. 1034.)

A mere right of way for a pipe-line of a water company, entirely unconnected with any privilege to take tolls, is not a franchise. (Spring Valley W. W. v. Barber, 99 Cal. 36, 33 Pac. 735.)

Stock of a California corporation, whose tangible property is situated in another state, is taxable in this state in the possession of a resident of this state. (San Francisco v. Flood, 64 Cal. 504, 2 Pac. 264; San Francisco v. Fry, 63 Cal. 470.)

A franchise to collect rates for water is taxable under this section. (Spring Valley W. W. v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 69.)

The franchise of a railroad company is property subject to taxation and is not exempt by reason of its being a means or instrument employed by Congress to carry into operation the powers of the general government. (Central Pac. R. R. Co. v. Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 35.)

The capital or capital stock of a corporation is taxable against the corporation. (San Francisco v. Spring Valley W. W., 54 Cal. 571.)

A municipal corporation has no power to impose a license tax upon a railroad company engaged in interstate commerce, and the mere fact that the tax is imposed on a branch line does not render the tax valid, where the branch is a part of the transcontinental line. (San Bernardino v. Southern Pac. Co., 107 Cal. 524, 40 Pac. 796.)

The word “property” is used in its ordinary and popular sense, and includes not only visible and tangible property, but also choses in action, such as solvent debts secured by mortgage. (People v. Eddy, 43 Cal. 331, 13 Am. Rep. 143; Lick v. Austin, 43 Cal. 590; Savings etc. Soc. v. Austin, 46 Cal. 415; People v. Ashbury, 46 Cal. 523; San Francisco v. La Societe etc., 131 Cal. 612, 63 Pac. 1016. But see Bank of Mendocino v. Chalfant, 51 Cal. 369, 471; People V. Hibernia Bank, 51 Cal. 243, 21 Am. Rep. 704.)

This is true although the debts are secured by pledge of property exempt from taxation. (Security Sav. Bank v. San Francisco, 132 Cal. 599, 64 Pac. 898.)

Bonds owned by a foreign insurance company doing business in this state and deposited with a banker in pursuance to law are taxable. (People v. Home Ins. Co., 29 Cal. 533.)

The word "franchise" as used in this section embraces all franchises whether vested in individuals or bodies politic. A franchise conferred on an individual to lay down pipes in the streets of a city and to collect rates for water furnished a city is to be taxed in the same way as when vested in corporations. (S. V. W. W. v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 108.)

The value of a franchise of a corporation is properly fixed by taking the value of all tangible property of the corporation from the market value of the capital stock. (Spring Valley W. W. v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 69; S. J. Gas Co. v. January, 57 Cal. 614.)

Railroad bonds, which are held in this state by the owner, have their situs here, and are taxable in this state, notwithstanding they are secured by mortgage of railroad property situated out of the state. (Mackay v. City and County of San Francisco, 113 Cal. 392, 45 Pac. 696.)

Loans or solvent credits secured by pledges of nontaxable stocks and bonds are taxable within the meaning of this section. (City and County of San Francisco v. La Societe etc., 131 Cal. 612, 63 Pac. 1016.)

While the franchise of a foreign corporation, engaged in business in California, “to be” a corporation was not taxable as a franchise, still the corporation's franchise “to do business” here was taxable. (London etc. Bank v. Block, 117 Fed. 900.)

Under article XII, section 15, of the Constitution, a foreign corporation's right to do business in this state is taxable. (London etc. Bank v. Block, 117 Fed. 900.)

Credits arising out of the property and business of a foreign corporation doing business in this state are taxable here. (London etc. Bank v. Block, 117 Fed. 900.)

The state franchise of the Central Pacific Railroad Company is separable from its federal franchise, and is taxable. (Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. People of State of Nevada, 162 U. S. 91, 16 Sup. (t. Rep. 885.)

This section applies to and includes rolling stock used partly in the state, but belonging to a corporation of another state whose property is operated under a lease. (Reinhart v. McDonald, 76 Fed. 403.)

Federal Franchises and Agencies.- A railroad corporation cannot claim an exemption of its property lying within the state from state taxation, because the corporation has been subsequently employed by the federal government in the carriage of mails, munitions of war, etc. (People v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 43 Cal. 398.)

A railroad company organized under the laws of this state to construct and operate a railroad in this state, which has subsequently received from the United States a franchise for the same purpose, may be assessed upon its franchise derived from the state. (People v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 105 Cal. 576, 38 Pac. 905; Colusa v. Glenn, 124 Cal. 498, 57 Pac. 477. But see People v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 83 Cal. 393, 23 Pac. 303.)

A county ordinance imposing a license upon the Southern Pacific Railroad Company for carrying persons and freight for hire by means of railroad cars in the county, is void as a tax upon the use of the franchiso granted by the United States government. Both the franchise and the use of it are beyond the taxing power of the state. (San Benito Co. v. Southern Pac. R. R. Co., 77 Cal. 318, 19 Pac. 827.)

The Western Union Telegraph Company is one of the instruments employed by the United States government for carrying into effect its sovereign powers, and a tax upon its franchise is void. (San Francisco v. Western Union Tel. Co., 96 Cal. 140, 31 Pac. 10.)

Whether or not a federal franchise has been assessed is a question of fact, and conversations with members of the board of equalization on the subject are not almissible. (People v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 105 Cal. 576, 38 Pac, 905.)

Franchises conferred by Congress cannot, without its permission, be taxed by the states. (California v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 127 U. S. 1, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073.)

National banks are agencies of the federal government, and are not subject to the taxing power of the state. (McHenry v. Downer, 116 Cal. 20, 47 Pac. 779.)

Taxation of property of a national bank, except as permitted by the United States Revised Statutes, is void. (First Nat. Bank v. San Francisco, 129 Cal. 96, 61 Pac. 778; Miller v. Heilbron, 58 Cal. 133.)

The provision of section 3609, Political Code, is valid and enforceable. (Nevada Nat. Bank v. Dodge, 119 Fel. 57.)

Section 5219, United States Revised Statutes, does not require the state to conform its system of taxation with respect to local banking corporations to that applied to national bank shares, and it is not violated because a state taxes the property, instead of shares of domestic corporations. (Nevada Nat. Bank v. Dodge, 119 Fed. 57.)

Stockhollers in a national bank have the right to the same deduc. tions from the assessed value of their shares as is allowed to loca! banks and individual owners of other moneyed capital. (Nevada Nat. Bank v. Dodge, 119 Fed. 57.)

Stockholders of a national bank are required to take notice of the law of the state for the assessment and taxation of their shares. (Nevada Nat. Bank v. Dodge, 119 Fed. 57.)

Exemptions. The legislature has no power to exempt any property from taxation. (Mackay v. San Francisco, 113 Cal. 392, 45 Pac. 696; Minturn v. Hayes, 2 Cal. 590, 56 Am. Dec. 366; People v. McCreery, 34 Cal. 432; People v. Black Diamond etc. Min. Co., 37 Cal. 54; Crosby v. Lyon, 37 Cal. 242; People v. Eddy, 43 Cal. 331, 13 Am. Rep. 143; People v. Latham, 52 Cal. 598.)

In the absence of congressional legislation the property and franchises of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company and of the Central Pacific Railroad Company are not exempt from state taxation. (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Co., 18 Fed. 385. Affirmed: 118 U. S. 394, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1132.)

Double Taxation.- The Constitution forbids the double taxation of property. (Burke v. Badlam, 57 Cal. 594; Germania Trust Co. v. San Francisco, 128 Cal. 598, 61 Pac. 178; Estate of Fair, 128 Cal. 607, 61 Pac. 184.)

Double taxation does not necessarily consist in assessing the same property twice to the same person, but may consist in requiring a double contribution to the same tax on account of the same property, though the assessments are to different persons. (Germania Trust Co. v. San Francisco, 128 Cal. 589, 61 Pac. 178; Estate of Fair, 128 Cal. 607, 61 Pac. 184.)

The inhibition of double taxation only applies to such taxation by the same government. (San Francisco v. Fry, 63 Cal. 470.)

Because the same subject matter has been twice taxed, it by no means follows that both taxes are void, but to entitle a party to relief in the courts, it must appear that the tax has been once paid or tendered. (Savings etc. Soc. v. Austin, 46 Cal. 415.)

It would be assessing the same property twice to assess money on deposit in a savings bank to the bank and also to the depositor. (Burke v. Badlam, 57 Cal. 594.)

It would be assessing the same property twice to assess to a cor poration all of its corporate property, and also to assess to each of the stockholders the shares held by them. (Burke v. Ballam, 57 Cal. 594.)

It is not double taxation to tax the roadbed and roadway of a rail. roal, as they are quite different. (San Francisco etc. R. R. Co. v. State Board, 60 Cal. 12.)

Where all the property of a corporation has been assessed and it owns none of its capital stock, an assessment of 'capital" or "capital stock’ is void. (San Francisco v. Spring Valley W. W., 63 Cal. 524.)

An attempt to tax a seat in a stock exchange board, in addition to the taxes levied upon all the property of the board, is void as an attempt at double taxation. (San Francisco v. Anderson, 103 Cal. 69, 42 Am. St. Rep. 98, 36 Pac. 1034.)

Since a mortgage is assessed as an interest in the land, to also assess the bonds which the mortgage secures is double taxation. (Ger. mania Trust Co. v. San Francisco, 128 Cal. 589, 61 Pac. 178; Estate of Fair, 128 Cal. 607, 61 Pac. 184.)

The lender of money is not subject to double taxation by reason of the payment of taxes on money loaned by him, and on solvent debts due him over his own indebtedness. (People v. McCreery, 34 Cal. 432.)

The provisions of this section are not conditions upon the continued existence of railroad corporations. (Railroad Tax Cases, 13 Fed. 722.)

It is presumed that all property of a corporation has been assessed to the corporation, and an assessment of stock to a stockholder will be considered a double assessment and void. (City and County of San Francisco v. Mackey, 21 Fed. 539.)

« PreviousContinue »