RICHARD P. GALE v. COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION.
No. 34,889.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
April 29, 1949.
Reargument filed May 27, 1949.
228 Minn. 345 | 37 N. W. (2d) 711
Snyder, Gale, Hoke, Richards & Janes and Edmund T. Montgomery, for respondent.
Certiorari to the board of tax appeals on petition of the commissioner of taxation.
Respondent, Richard P. Gale, is the duly appointed executor of the estate of Sarah P. Gale, who died November 14, 1944. On January 30, 1946, respondent filed a fiduciary income tax return for the estate covering the period beginning November 14, 1944, and ending October 31, 1945. This return disclosed that respondent between May 14, 1945, and October 24, 1945, sold short-term capital assets (held less than six months) at a profit of $323.38, and long-term assets (held more than six months) for a profit of $76,329.38. These profits formed the basis for a listing in respondent‘s return of income capital gains of $38,488.07, being the total of 100 percent of the short-term capital gains of $323.38 and 50 percent of the long-term gains of $76,329.38. Was respondent justified in reporting for tax purposes only 50 percent of the long-term capital gains?
Prior to the amendment of
“The provisions of this act shall apply to all taxable years beginning after December 31, 1944.” (Italics supplied.)
Respondent, in calculating his tax upon a basis of 50 percent of the long-term capital gains, applied the tax-computation formula set forth in
“The tax imposed on a taxpayer for a period beginning in one calendar year, hereinafter called ‘first calendar year,’ and ending in the following calendar year, hereinafter called ‘second calendar year,’ when the law applicable to the first calendar year is different from the law applicable to the second calendar year, shall be the sum of (1) that proportion of a tax for the entire period, computed under the law applicable to the first calendar year, which the portion of such period falling within the first calendar year is of the entire period, and (2) that proportion of a tax for the entire period, computed under the law applicable to the second calendar year, which the portion of such period falling within the second calendar year is of the entire period.” (Italics supplied.)
On June 10, 1947, the commissioner made and filed an order assessing an additional tax against respondent upon the theory that the 1945 amendment to
The term “taxable year” as used herein is defined by statute (
We cannot agree with the commissioner that
We turn first to the specific wording of L. 1945, c. 596, § 4, which provides that the provisions of the act “shall apply to all taxable years beginning after December 31, 1944.” (Italics supplied.) Respondent asserts that there is at least an ambiguity as to whether the phrase “beginning after December 31, 1944,” relates to the words “taxable years” or to the words “this act shall apply.” He seeks to have the court interpret the section as if it read: “Beginning after December 31, 1944, the provisions of this act shall apply to all taxable years.” Transposition of words and phrases is authorized only where it is necessary to give the statute meaning and avoid absurdity, where it is necessary to make the act consistent and harmonious throughout, where the mistake is obvious, or where it is apparent on the face of the statute that the word or phrase has
Shall we by indirection give effect to the provisions of c. 596 with respect to a taxable year beginning prior to December 31, 1944, on the theory that, although this statute could not be directly applied to respondent‘s tax year, nevertheless it existed as a suspended legislative enactment which in effect created a different law for the calendar year of 1945 from that applicable to the preceding calendar year, and that therefore the tax-computation formula of
Our construction of the wording of § 4 (
“This law shall * * * apply in computing taxes as follows:
* * * * *
“(3) To every taxable year commencing on or after January 1, 1937, * * *”
In the light of the context, there is no question that the language was employed to convey an intent to restrict the formula as we have indicated. In L. 1939, c. 446, § 24, we have language practically
In keeping with this expressed intent is the administrative interpretation by the state income tax division since 1937. In ascertaining legislative intent, administrative interpretations of a statute may be considered (
The order and decision of the board of tax appeals is reversed.
Reversed.
UPON PETITION FOR REARGUMENT.
On May 27, 1949, the following opinion was filed:
MATSON, JUSTICE.
Through oversight, the writer of the foregoing opinion failed to include therein the court‘s consideration of the issue of constitutionality. Respondent‘s contention is that c. 596, § 4 (now
Respondent seeks to invoke the provisions of c. 596, § 1, subd. 4, to secure the benefit of a tax computation based on a 50 percent instead of a 100 percent long-term capital assets income gain and at the same time asserts the unconstitutionality of another provision of the same act (c. 596, § 4) whereby the legislature has prescribed a limitation to the effect that the benefits of the act shall be available only to taxpayers whose actual tax year commences after a specified date. In conferring a right to a more advantageous basis of tax computation, the legislature obviously may prescribe a condition or limitation governing the time when the right shall become available. He who voluntarily invokes the benefits of a statute cannot assert the unconstitutionality of its limitations. B. & O. R. Co. v. Lambert Run Coal Co. (4 Cir.) 267 F. 776. Since a party cannot both assail and rely upon the validity of a statute in the same proceeding, he who assumes the validity of a statute by invoking its provisions to obtain a tax reduction may not attack its constitu-
The petition for rehearing is denied.
