Federal Drug Co. v. Pittsburgh
57 A.2d 849
Pa.
1948
Check Treatment

*1 Drug Company v. et al. et Stores Co. al. v. al. Argued *2 1948. Before C. J., Maxey, and JJ. Stearne Linn, Stern, Patterson, Jones, Diiew, Rosenberg, David him Jack for B. with J. Pitler, Drug Company, plaintiff. Clyde him Elder W. P. K. Marshall, Motheral, Q. Armstrong, A. Kenneth Shaw Jackson, Reed, Smith, MeClay Thorpe, Armstrong, & and Reed Bostwiek, &. Company plaintiffs. Stores al., Alpern, City

Anne X. her J. Prank Solicitor, City City Assistant McKenna, Jr., Pitts- Solicitor, burgh, defendant. Chidsey, Attorney

T. MeKeen and II. F. General, Stambaugh, Attorney Deputy for Common- General, intervenor. wealth, 1948:

Per Curiam, Opinion Bills dismissed. will be filed later. by Mr. Justice Opinion Allen M. March . Stearne, 1948: together These two cases were heard on and bills opinion. They answers bewill of in one equity City are in to restrain the from collecting, in No. per- 67, mercantile license tax “on engaging occupations in certain sons and businesses” This ordi and collection. levy for a and providing The bill also 1947. December dated No. nance is enforcing from to restrain seeks oc in certain engaging requiring persons an ordinance obtain a mercantile and businesses cupations No. This ordinance is of a fee therefor. payment is con In bill No. it 1947. December 1, dated do invalid as that ordinance tended Both ordinances were and foreign corporations. mestic enacted June of the Act No. passed Legislative constitutionality which page 1250, Town et al. Robinson English this Court upheld 2d We Pa. 55 A. District et ship jurisdiction. taken original have conflict contend that ordinances Plaintiffs *3 viz: (1) three legislative enactments, or duplicate imposed license taco the by The mercantile District under Act No. 320 June of of L. Purdon’s Pennsylvania Legislative P. page that a tax a state tax and is there It is such is urged of Act No. supra. fore the prohibition within to in adversely been answered plaintiffs contention has Sarah C. v. 358 Pa. 448. Pittsburgh, McClelland of Tax now levied under (2) Corporate The Net Income Act No. approved May 14, Pennsyl vania Legislative Service, page 248.

It tax is an tax imposed is claimed that this excise tax the therefore this state, which has the invalid. field, rendering city ordinances This contention is of our in decisions Blauner’s Philadelphia et al. v. 330 Pa. Inc., 198 A. 889 and 338 Pa. Philadelphia Samuels, 12 A. 2d 79. In the enactment those whether cases, or be a tax an ex (Sterling Act) regarded as property the In the cise tax upon property. tax on the of gross ordinance the is present volume Corporation Foreign (3) Franchise Tax The business. 1871(h). Msy PS, Act 184 —72 of upon urged an excise a fran- that tax It this is is tax— doing privilege the business within state chise or of capital. property or The contention is made is not prohibi- city the that ordinance therefore within the is supra. tion of The Act The to this contention is twofold. answer privilege foreign supra, of of a the a is tax for corporation coming into state of the purpose conducting corporate the business its form. privi- city The for the a tax ordinance, attack, lege city respect doing the business within any corporation. partnership or It is not a individual, foreign corporate tax In limited to associations. the sec- place, object ond in each the of the tax is while case purpose doing actually the tax the business, imposed by Foreign Corporate the Franchise Tax is property foreign measured the value of the corporation In within the state. ordi- gross nances the tax is on the volume of business con- taxpayer. respective impacts ducted of the totally two taxes on a are different basis. why

There is an additional reason mercan only duplicates tile tax is valid. Such tax if it is invalid subject pro state tax on the same matter within the supra. hibition contained in Act No. In the Blauner case, almost identical situation August The Act of (Sterling L. P. 45, 53PS, *4 Act) authorized cities of the first and second class to impose, inter mercantile alia, almost taxes, prohibition identical appears in as Act 481 of supra, Philadelphia imposed a sales tax. The state at imposing the same time was a state mercantile tax. The argument same was there as is made, now Court decided that the sales tax and the state mercantile even if both were excise did taxes, not subject, person same nor the same and that

458 bad not been the ordinances field covered held license tax. What we1 mercantile tbe state Any here. pos application Blauner case has equal that the remembered it is doubt when dissipated sible license tax state mercantile repealed P. L. amended, PS, 2621, as May 2, January effective May the Act of of 1947 2621. When Act 72 PS Supp., no a mercan longer imposing the state was passed, therefore left open tax. That tax field was tile license subdivisions. political entered our order For the we foregoing reasons, is now to which this pursuant opinion 19,1948, filed. Each its own costs. pay party

Kensington Hospital for Women Case.