259 Mass. 14 | Mass. | 1927
This is an action of contract brought under the authority of G. L. c. 63, § 2, by the collector of taxes of the city of Boston to recover a tax assessed for 1924 upon the shares of stock in the defendant bank under G. L. c. 63, § 1. The answer admits all the allegations of fact of the declaration and then avers that the assessment was invalid for several reasons, one being that the bank had duly made election to be taxed for the year 1924 under § 10A, inserted in G. L. c. 63 by St. 1923, c. 487, § 2, and that the assessors had therefore no authority to assess a tax on its shares under G. L. c. 63, § 1, and that St. 1924, c. 233, did not affect the rights of the bank under its election, nor apply to the taxa^ tian of the bank for the year 1924.
It becomes necessary to make a somewhat critical examination of the terms of St. 1923, c. 487, in the light of the preexisting statutes. It is entitled, “An Act providing an alternative method of taxation of national banks and providing for the settlement of certain existing tax claims of such banks.” It was enacted as an emergency law under art. 48 of the Amendments to the Constitution, “The Referendum. II. Emergency Measures.” The preamble recites that “It is urgent that immediate provision be made for the settlement of existing controversies relative to the taxation
It is manifest from this analysis of said c. 487 that there was much controversy and considerable litigation concerning the validity of taxes assessed upon shares of stock in national banks under G. L. c. 63, § 1, and that large sums of money were involved. From the facts revealed in Central National Bank v. Lynn, ante, 1, decided this day, and from National Rockland Bank v. Boston, and seventeen other cases, 296 Fed. Rep. 743, Fourth Atlantic National Bank v. Boston, 300 Fed. Rep. 29, and National Shawmut Bank v. Boston, 7 Fed. Rep. (2d.) 1020, it can readily be seen that the matter was one of great importance to all the parties concerned. One plain purpose of said c. 487 was to compose strife and settle litigation in which the public treasury was considerably involved. This statute, like all others, must be construed and interpreted in the light of the preexisting law, the mischief to be remedied, and the object to be accomplished, in order to effectuate so far as practicable the legislative design in enacting it. Duggan v. Bay State Street Railway, 230 Mass. 370, 374.
The defendant bank duly made election to be taxed in accordance with said § 10A, by filing notice thereof in the prescribed form with the commissioner on or before March 15, 1924. This was the second calendar year of the operation of said § 10A. At that time § 10A, added to G. L. c. 63 by St. 1923, c. 487, § 2, controlled. The plaintiff contends that this election was nullified by the enactment of St. 1924, c. 233. That act was approved on April 12, 1924. By its § 1 said § 10A was amended by inserting a minimum provision as to the tax on national banks, to the effect that “in
The election of the defendant to be taxed under said § 10A, as phrased in St. 1923, c. 487, when filed on or before March 15.1924, became under the statutes as they then stood of full force and effect. “In lieu of the” tax subsequently assessed under G. L. c. 63, § 1, and here sought to be recovered, the defendant became entitled by its election to be taxed under said § 10A. It then was the duty of the commissioner at once to notify the assessors of Boston of that election, whereupon the statutory mandate was operative that the local assessors shall make no assessment upon the shares of stock of the defendant “in that year.”
The right of the defendant to be thus taxed arising from its election duly made and manifested was not obliterated by the enactment of St. 1924, c. 233. The only permanent and new provision added thereby to the tax law was the one imposing a minimum tax. In every other particular said § 10A as originally enacted was left unchanged. The provision of § 2 of said c. 233 has reasonable scope if held applicable to the effective date and application of the minimum tax provision. There are not to be found in said c. 233 any words to the effect that all elections filed on or before March 15.1924, shall be inoperative. Such a provision would have annulled all such elections filed by banks not to be affected by the minimum tax clause. There was no necessity as a practical matter for requiring a new election by such banks. It would be difficult to hold that elections filed on or before March 15, 1924, by banks not affected by the minimum tax clause were annulled by said c. 233, and that shares of stock
This interpretation of the force and effect of St. 1924, c. 233, is confirmed by another important consideration. A construction of said c. 233, in accordance with the contention of the plaintiff, holding it to render void the election of the defendant to be taxed under said § 10A in its initial form, would raise grave doubts of its constitutionality, as impairing the obligation of contracts. The argument is strong that, in the light of the terms of St. 1923, c. 487, the controversies designed thereby to be laid at rest, and the alternative option thereby presented to the national banks for their selection each year, the legislative purpose was to place a contractual sanction upon elections by the banks filed according to its terms, at least to the extent of not attempting to impose a tax on the shares of national banks under G. L. c. 63, § 1, in direct contravention of an election made according to the terms of said c. 487. New Jersey v. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 16. New Jersey v. Yard, 95 U. S. 104.
It is an established canon of constitutional law that statutes, where reasonably possible, shall be interpreted so as not to render them contrary to the terms of the Constitution, and also so as to avoid grave doubts on that score. Kennedy v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation, 256 Mass. 426, 430, 431, and cases there collected. Bratton v. Chandler, 260 U. S. 110, 114. Thurman v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway, 254 Mass. 569, 576. Hanscom v. Malden & Melrose Gas Light Co., supra, page 5.
The result is that the demurrer to the answer ought to be overruled because the answer states a good defence. In accordance with the stipulation of the plaintiff and the terms of the report, judgment is to be entered for the defendant.
So ordered.