23 S.E.2d 78 | Ga. | 1942
Under statutes imposing on corporations incorporated under Georgia laws an occupational tax based on issued capital stock, and imposing a similar tax based on capital stock and surplus employed in Georgia on foreign corporations doing business in Georgia (Ga. L. 1929, p. 84; Ga. L. Ex. Sess. 1931, p. 76; Ga. L. 1935, p. 11; Ga. L. 1941, p. 204), a foreign corporation domesticated in Georgia under statute (Code, §§ 22-1601, 22-1609) was, for the year 1940, subject to tax as a foreign corporation, and not as a corporation incorporated under Georgia laws.
To the affidavit of illegality the State revenue commissioner filed a general demurrer, which was overruled; and the writ of error was brought to the Supreme Court because of constitutional questions involved.
Upon the overruling of the demurrer to the affidavit of illegality it was permissible to bring the case immediately to the Supreme Court. Chattooga County v. Glenn,
The effect of the domestication statute was construed by the Federal Judge of the Southern District of Georgia, on an application for removal by a domesticated foreign corporation. The decision by Judge Barrett in Foy Shemwell v.
Georgia-Alabama Power Co., D.C., 298 Fed. 643, 646, held: "This act did not create a Georgia corporation. While domestication is different from license (Angier v. East Tennessee etc. R. Co.,
The language of the act of 1935 is clear, and is consistent with previous legislative history. It is fundamental that where the provision of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean what has been clearly expressed, and no occasion for construction exists. The decisions cited in Forrester v.Continental Gin Co., supra, sustain this position. Further, in the act, by placing a comma after the word "profit" is shown the intention of the legislature on the subject.
"If it can be gathered `from a subsequent statute in pari materia what meaning the legislature attached to the words of a former statute, this will amount to a legislative declaration of the meaning, and will govern the construction of the first statute.'" Barron v. Terrell,
Furthermore, statutes imposing taxes are in case of doubt to be construed in favor of the taxpayer. In Mystyle Hosiery Shops *867
v. Harrison,
The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the affidavit of illegality.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.