TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Central Trust Co. v. Treat

CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. TREAT, Collector

Cent. Trust Co. v. Treat, 171 F. 301 (1909)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
June 10, 1909
Judges
Circrtit, Lacombe
Citations
171 F. 3014 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 41651909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5601
Headnotes
Internal Revenue (§ 9*) — Special Tax on Business — Banks—“Banker.” War Revenue Act June 13, 1898, e. 448, § 2, 30 Stat. 448 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2286), provided that bankers using a capital not exceeding §25,000 should pay a tax of §50 and §2 additional for every §1,000 in excess of §25,000, and that, in estimating, the capital surplus should be included. The section also declares.that every person, firm, etc., having a place where credits are opened by the deposit or collection of money or currency, subject to be paid or remitted on draft, check, or order, or where money is advanced or loaned on stocks, bonds, bullion, bills of- exchange, or promissory notes, or where stocks, bonds, bullion, bills of exchange, or promissory notes are received for discount or sale, shall be a “banker” within the act. Held, that it was only the capital surplus used in the banking business that was subject to tax, and hence the undivided profits of a trust company, invested in bonds and stocks, were not subject to taxation, though the corporation was engaged in some of the activities of a bank, and the profits so invested were available to make good losses in the corporation’s enterprises and to increase its credit. I Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Internal Revenue, Gent. Dig. § 16; Dec. Dig. § 9.* For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 1, pp. 695-697.]
Summary
This is an action to recover $22,156 paid by the plaintiff under protest as a tax claimed by the defendant, a collector of internal revenue, to be. due under War Revenue Act June 13, 1898, c. 448, § 2, 30 Stat. 448 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2286). The relevant parts of the section read as follows: “Sec. 2. That from and a fter July first, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, special taxes shall be, and hereby are, imposed annually as follows, that is to say: “(1) Bankers using or employing a capital not exceeding the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars shall pay fifty dollars; when using or employing a capital exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars, for every additional thousand dollars in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars, two dollars, and In estimating capital surplus shall be included. The amount of such annual tax shall in all cases be computed on the basis of capital and surplus for the preceding fiscal year. Every person, firm, or company, and every incorporated or other ■bank, having a place where credits are opened by the deposit or collection of money or currency, subject to be paid or remitted upon draft, check, or order, or where .money is advanced or loaned on stocks, bonds, bullion, bills of exchange, or promissory notes, or where stocks, bonds, bullion, bills of exchange, or promissory notes are received for discount or sale, shall be a banker under this Act: Provided, that any savings bank having no capital stock, and whose business is confined to receiving deposits and loaning or investing the same for the benefit of its depositors, and which does no other business of banking, shall not be subject to this tax.” The only matter in dispute is whether the tax is payable on $11,078,-355.29, being accumulated and undivided profits resulting from the conducting of the business of complainant for many years.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Lacombecircrtit

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

LACOMBE, Circrtit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). In view of former decisions in this circuit (Leather Manufacturers’ Bank v. Treat [C. C.] 116 Fed. 774 ; Id., 128 Fed. 262 , 62 C. C. A. 644 ) there would be no difficulty in finding that these accumulated undivided profits are either “surplus” or “capital.” In the case cited the plaintiff was a bank engaged solely in a banking business, and presumably all the property that it had was employed in such business. But in the case at bar the plaintiff is not a bank or banker, and, although it does some of the things enumerated in the section as indicative of such business, its principal business seems to be distinctively that of a trust company.

It will be observed that the “capital and surplus,” which is subjected to.the tax, is that which is used or employed by the banker; i. e., in the banking business. The evidence shows that the entire amount of these undivided profits before, during, and at the end of the fiscal year were invested in municipal and railway bonds and in the stocks of corporations, and were not in any sense employed in the business of banking, although the ownership of this large amount of securities available to make good losses in any of the enterprises which the corporation was conducting naturally increased its credit generally.

Counsel may prepare and submit findings in accordance with this decision, whereupon they will be signed, and judgment entered for the plaintiff.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1909: 11916: 21917: 11921: 11922: 11923: 21924: 119092026peak 1916 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Anderson v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.241 F. 322 (2d Cir. 1917)
  2. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. United States259 U.S. 296 (1922)
  3. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Treat171 F. 302 (1909)
  4. Real Estate Title, Ins. & Trust Co. v. Lederer229 F. 799 (E.D. Pa. 1916)
  5. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Malley288 F. 903 (D. Mass. 1923)
  6. Ex parte Eberhardt270 F. 334 (E.D. Mo. 1921)

Most recent

  1. Malley v. Old Colony Trust Co.299 F. 523 (1st Cir. 1924)
  2. Real Estate Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. Lederer291 F. 265 (E.D. Pa. 1923)
  3. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Malley288 F. 903 (D. Mass. 1923)
  4. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. United States259 U.S. 296 (1922)
  5. Ex parte Eberhardt270 F. 334 (E.D. Mo. 1921)
  6. Anderson v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.241 F. 322 (2d Cir. 1917)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Leather Mfrs.' Nat. Bank v. Treat, 128 F. 262 (2d Cir. 1904) 11
Leather Mfrs.' Nat. Bank v. Treat, 116 F. 774 (1902) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list