Opinion by
Tins is an appeal by Warner Bros. Theatres, Inc., from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, sustaining a tax settlement against if for the year ending August 31,1937. The amount of tax in question is $8,262.01.
The tax is levied under the Act of Mаy 16,1935, P. L. 208, as amended by the Act of April 8, 1937, P. L. 227, 72 PS Sec. 3420a, Sec. 3, which provides: “Every corporation shall be subject to and shall pay for the privilege of doing business in this Commonwealth, a State excise tax ... at the rate of ten per centum . . . upon all net incоme received by, and accruing to, such corporation during the fiscal year commencing in the calendar year 1936 and ending in the calendar year 1937 . . .”. Net income is defined by Section 2, “Net income. 1. In сase the entire business of the corporation is transacted within this Commonwealth, * net income for the calendar year or fiscal year as returned to, and ascertained by the Federal Government . . .”. (Italics supplied.)
At the outset, it is to be оbserved that we are not considering an income tax, but an excise tax for the privilege of doing business in the Commonwealth, based upon net income as returned to and ascertained by the Federal Government. When this situation is borne in mind, the doubts as to the legality of the tax suggested *272 by appellant disappear. Net income as ascertained is the base upon which the tax is measured, not the tax itself. How it wаs fixed by the Federal authorities is of no concern to the taxing officers of the Commonwealth nor tо its statute. The rate of the income tax may vary, or the method of its computation, but as a base, it is unvаrying.
We think what has been said answers appellant's argument, that in designating net income as the base for thе tax there has been a delegation of legislative power in violation of Article IX, Section 1, of our Constitution. If the legislature had the constitutional right to levy a graduated income tax and should providе that it should be the same as fixed from time to time by the Federal Governmtínt, then we would have a situation such аs appellant contends against. The concrete fact upon which appellant predicates its argument is that in determining what is net income, the Federal statute permits only $2,000.00 of capital lоsses to be deducted, instead of the total thereof, which, for the year in question, amount to $84,000.00 so far as appellant is concerned, and that the deductions allowed in different years have and may vary, and, therefore, the power to vary is in the Federal legislative branch of government and not in the keeping of our own legislature, where the Constitution fixes it. But the Act does not delegate the power tо tax to the Federal tribunal, it only takes the net income fixed by it as the base for the excise privilege tax levied by the Commonwealth.
Holgate Bros. Co. v. Bashore,
We cаn dismiss the contention that the act in question violates Article III, Section 6, of the Constitution, providing that, “No law shall be revived, amended, or the provisions thereof extended or conferred, by referencе to its title only, but so much thereof as is revived, amended, extended or conferred shall be reenaсted and published at length” by stating that if the argument is *274 meant to assert that the Act of Congress providing for an incоme tax is embodied in the statute, it is obvious that no such thing is done.
The Act before us does not violate the Uniformity provision of the Constitution (Art. IX, Sec. 1). It by its terms applies to all corporations with which the Commonweаlth has power constitutionally to deal by making their net income subject to the tax:
Turco Paint & Varnish Co. v. Kalodner,
The court below correctly held appellant liable for the tax.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
In this instance it is.