Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Com. vs. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co.,

Com, vs. Matheson Automobile Co.,

Com. vs. McAfee,

Com. vs. Mountain Ice Co.,

Com. vs. New York & Pennsylvania Co.,
Com. vs. Penn Traffic Co., ....

Com. vs. Philadelphia Contributionship,
Com, vs. Phila. Mfrs. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,

Com. vs. Provident Life & Trust Co. of Phila.,
Com. vs. Pullman Co.,

Com. vs. Reliance Safe Deposit & Trust Co.,
Com. vs. Rosenburg,

Com. vs. Welsbach Co.,

...

Com. vs. West Chester State Normal School,
Com. vs. White Haven Water Co.,
Commutation of Sentence,

Consolidated Dressed Beef Co., Com. vs.,
Consolidated Telephone Co's, Com. vs.,
Copelin vs. School Directors of Harrisburg,
County Superintendents of Schools, Election,

Custer City Chemical Co., Com. vs.,

PAGE

164

14

224

38

51

36

246

105

I 20

142

124

228

130

226

I

254

79

112

179

271

46

115

Dilworth, Porter & Co., Com. vs.,

Durz, Steelton vs.,

East Brady Caloric Co., Com. vs.,

Employment of Children,

Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, Com. vs.,

First Nat. Bank of New Kingston vs. First Nat. Bank of

Mifflintown,

French vs. Batt,

Gable vs. Whiteside, et al.,

Girard Trust Co., Com. vs.,

Green, et al., Towsen vs.,

Hohman vs. Keystone Indemnity Co.,

Insurance Companies,

Johnstown Passenger Ry. Co., Com. vs.,

28

170

200

62

173

210

83 26

97

188

163

93

PAGE

Kelker Street Market Co., vs. Segelbaum,
Keystone Indemnity Co., Hohman vs.,

Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., Com. vs.,
Limitation of hours of labor,
Limitation of hours of labor,

Matheson Automobile Co., Com. vs.,

McAfee, Cadwallader, et al., vs.,
McAfee, Com. vs.,

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Mercantile Appraisers,

Mines and Mining,

145

211

Parole of Convicts,

Public Documents, Distribution,

Mines and Mining,

Mountain Ice Co., Com. vs.,

New York & Pennsylvania Co., Com. vs.,
Nomination of Rumsey,

Nurses, Registration of,

Penal and Reformatory Institutions, Visitation of,

Penn Traffic Co., Com. vs.,

Phila. Contributionship, Com. vs.,

Phila. Mfrs. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., Com. vs.,

Postal Savings Banks,

Provident Life & Trust Co. of Phila., Com. vs.,

Public Records,

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Pullman Co., Com. vs.,

142

Pymatuning Reservior,

256

Registration of Nurses,

189

Reliance Safe Deposit & Trust Co., Com. vs.,

124

[blocks in formation]

PAGE

Towsen vs. Green, et al.,

97

Welsbach Co., Com. vs.,

130

West Chester State Normal School, Com. vs.,

226

White Haven Water Co., Com. vs.,

I

Whiteside et al., Gable vs.,

83

THE

DAUPHIN COUNTY REPORTS

CONTAINING THE CASES DECIDED BY

Judges of the Twelfth Judicial District of Pennsylvania

AND THE

Decisions of the Departments of the State Government.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA VS. THE WHITE HAVEN WATER COMPANY.

Corporations Tax on capital stock.

The tax on the capital stock of a corporation, although a property tax, is not a tax directly upon the property. In fixing the value of the capital stock, the value of the property is to be considered, together with all other elements of value.

Appeal from settlement for tax on capital stock. C. P. Dauphin County, No. 788, Commonwealth Docket, 1909.

M. Hampton Todd, Attorney General, for commonwealth. Olmsted & Stamm, for defendant.

KUNKEL, P. J., December 20, 1912.

The defendant company has appealed from an account settled against it by the Auditor General and State Treasurer for tax on its capital stock for the year 1908. The case has

Commonwealth vs. The White Haven Water Company.

been submitted to us for trial without a jury. The sole question involved is that of the value of the defendant company's capital stock during the year in question. The officers of the company appraised its capital stock, which consists of 602 shares, at $25 per share, or a total valuation of $15,050. The accounting officers of the commonwealth not being satisfied with the appraisement fixed the value at $30,000 and settled an account against the company on that valuation, charging it with a tax of $150. It paid $75 on account and took this appeal. We are asked to find the actual value in cash of the defendant's capital stock in the year 1908. The authorized capital stock of the company is $25,000, of which $15,050 is paid in. It declared a dividend upon this latter amount of three per cent. There were no sales of the capital stock during the year. Its net earnings were $1,634.68. The book value of its property was $34,847,29 and it had cash and current assets of $1,254.53. It had a floating debt of $6,000, upon which it paid interest at the rate of five per cent. The valuation fixed by the accounting officers of the commonwealth appears to be almost the valuation of the defendant company's property. The capital stock tax, although a property tax, is not a tax directly upon the property. The value of the property of course is to be taken into account, together with other elements of value in fixing the value of the capital stock, but the statute imposes the tax upon the capital stock and declares that "it shall be estimated and appraised at its actual value in cash, as it existed between the first and fifteenth days of November of the tax year." Having regard to the considerations mentioned in the taxing statute and the elements of value appearing in the evidence, we find that the value of the defendant company's capital stock for the year 1908 was $20,000.

We conclude:

CONCLUSION OF LAW.

That the Commonwealth is eititled to recover from

the defendant as follows:

Value of capital stock $20,000, tax at the rate

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »