OZARK PIPE LINE CORPORATION v. MONIER ET AL., CONSTITUTING THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, ET AL.
No. 181
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Argued November 26, 1924. Decided January 12, 1925.
266 U.S. 555
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
We need not consider the contention of the petitioners that the owner of the right of redemption from a sale by advertisement under the Michigan laws is not an owner of real property within the meaning of subsection 1 of § 302 of the federal Act. Nor need we consider the contentions of the respondent that there was no proof of a legal foreclosure and that, independently of the federal Act, he was entitled to redeem. Thе latter present questions wholly of state law.
Reversed.
1. A Missouri statute requires every corporation not organized under the laws of that State but engaged in business therein to pay an annual franchise tax equal to one-tenth of 1% of the par value of its capital stock and surplus employed in business in the State.
2. Such a tax cannot constitutionally be exacted of a foreign corporation whose business in the taxing State consists exclusively in the operation of a pipe line for transporting petroleum through the State in interstate commerce, and in ownership of property, maintenance of its principal office, purchase of supplies, employment of labor, maintenance and operation of telephone and telegraph lines and automobiles, and other acts within the State, all exclusively for the furtherance of such interstate commerce, and constituting the means and instruments by which it is conducted. P. 563.
Reversed.
APPEAL from a decree of the District Court which dismissed the appellant corporation‘s bill in a suit to enjoin the appellees, officials of Missouri—from taking proceedings for the revocation of its license to do business in Missouri and for making the amоunt of an annual franchise tax, with penalties, damages and interest, a lien upon its property in that State.
Mr. Truman Post Young, with whom Mr. Kent Koerner, Mr. William F. Fahey and Mr. John M. Carroll were on the briefs, for appellant.
I. The Missouri franchise tax is a tax upon the privilege of doing business. Marquette Hotel Co. v. State Tax Comm., 282 Mo. 213.
II. The maintenance of the office in St. Louis for the purposes shown in the evidence did not constitute doing an intrastate business within the State which would be subject to taxation, nor did the maintenance of the pipe line nor the other activities described in the evidence. All of these activities centered around the interstate business of the company. Cheney Bros. Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U.S. 147; Norfolk, etc., R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 136 U.S. 114; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U.S. 196; Philadelphia S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U.S. 326; McCall v. California, 136 U.S. 104; Pembina Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181.
III. The powers granted to the company in its original Maryland charter are not decisive of the question as to what, if any, business the corporation does within the State of Missouri. That question is a question of fact and not of charter powers.
IV. The fact that the company obtained a licеnse to do business in Missouri does not indicate that the company was doing an intrastate business. Norfolk, etc. R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 136 U.S. 114.
Even if the corporation had been originally incorporated in Missouri, it would not be subject to a tax upon interstate commerce. Philadelphia S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U.S. 326.
V. No State may levy a franchise or excise tax upon a company doing solely an interstate business in, through or across the State. The transportation of oil from one State to another is interstate commerce. Eureka Pipe Line Co. v. Hallanan, 257 U.S. 265; United Fuel Gas Co. v. Hallanan, 257 U.S. 277; Kansas City, etc. Ry. Co. v. Botkin, 240 U.S. 227; Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U.S. 640.
VI. Even where a corporation is doing both interstate and intrastate business, a tax so levied as to include or compel the payment of a tax upon the interstate business will be void. Oklahoma v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 223 U.S. 298; Pullman Co. v. Kansas, 216 U.S. 56; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U.S. 1; International Paper Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U.S. 135; Crew Levick Co. v. Pennsylvania, 245 U.S. 292; Looney v. Crane Co., 245 U.S. 178; Ludwig v. Western Union Tel. Co., 216 U.S. 146; Locomobile Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U.S. 146.
VII. This case does not come within the principle of those cases upholding taxes, in form privilege taxes but in substance and effect general property taxes, Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 U.S. 688; nor within those holding that where the tax is a tax upon intrastate commerce the mere fact that the method of computation
Mr. Jesse W. Barrett, Attorney General of the State of Missouri, and Mr. J. Henry Caruthers fоr appellees.
I. Interstate commerce is a “practical conception,” and the tax in question to be valid must not, in its practical effect and operation, burden interstate commerce. Eureka Pipe Line Co. v. Hallanan, 257 U.S. 265; Hump Hairpin Co. v. Emmerson, 258 U.S. 290; St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U.S. 350.
II. Corporations doing both interstate and intrastate commerce may be required to pay a franchise or excise tax.
While a State may not use its taxing power to regulate or burden interstate commerce, it is settled that a state excise tax which affects such commerce only indirectly and remotely, may be entirely valid, where it is clear that it is not imposed with the covert purpose or with the effect of defeating federal constitutional rights. Hump Hairpin Co. v. Emmerson, 258 U.S. 290; Maine v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 142 U.S. 217; U. S. Express Co. v. Minnesota, 223 U.S. 335; Baltic Mining Co. v. Massachusetts, 231 U.S. 68; Kansas City, etc. R. R. Co. v. Stiles, 242 U.S. 111; Kansas City, etc. Ry. Co. v. Kansas, 240 U.S. 227; U. S. Glue Co. v. Oak Creek, 247 U.S. 321; Schwab v. Richardson, 263 U.S. 88.
III. The Missouri Franchise Tax Act has been held by this Court not to be a burden on interstate commerce. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Middlekamp, 256 U.S. 226.
IV. What is “doing business” by a foreign corporation in a State other than that of its incorporation? The answer to this question constitutes the sole controversy presented here.
The vice-president, secretary, treasurer and other officers maintain their offices and headquarters in their offices in St. Louis, where telephones are maintained, and the name of the company appears on the doors of said offices. Stockholders and directors meetings are held there. All certificates for the receipt of oil for transportation are sent to the St. Louis office where the revenue for said transportation is figured and entered of record. The tariff rates are also kept there and, in fact, the entire business of the corporation is managed and directed from the St. Louis office.
The court remarked that these facts were not traversed and were not susceptible of contradiction in any substantial particular.
In view of the foregoing evidence and finding of facts and the following decisions, appellees contend that the
V. A finding of fact by a chancellor, who heard the witnesses, will not be reversed, except in a clear case.
VI. The burden of proof rests upon appellant. Maxwell Land Co. v. Dawson, 151 U.S. 586.
Opinion of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant is a Maryland corporation. It owns and operates a pipe line extending from within Oklahoma through Missouri to a point in Illinois, together with certain gathering lines in Oklahoma. Through this line crude pеtroleum is conducted to Illinois and there delivered. Oil is neither received nor delivered in the State of Missouri. Since it began operations appellant has been assessed and has paid general property taxes upon that portion of its line, and upon its other assets, in Missouri. It maintains its principal office in Missouri where it keeps its books and bank accounts and from which it pays its employees within and without the State, purchases supplies, employs labor, maintains telephone and telegraph lines, enters into contracts for transportation of crude oil, and carries on various other activities connected with and in furtherance of its pipe line operations. Along the pipe line in Missouri there are three pumping stations the sole use of which is to accelerate the passage of the oil through the line. It owns and operates passenger and truck automobiles, but these as well as its other property in Missouri are used exclusively in the
The controversy arises over an attempt on the part of the State authorities to collect from appellant an annual franchise tax under
The tax is one upon the privilege or right to do business, State ex rel. v. State Tax Commission, 282 Mo. 213, 234; and if appellant is engaged only in interstate commerce it is conceded, as it must be, that the tax, so far as appellant is concerned, constitutionally cannot be imposed. It long has been settled that a State cannot lay a tax on interstate commerce in any form, whether on the transportation of subjects of commerce, the receipts derived therefrom, or the occupation or business of carrying it on. Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U.S. 640, 648; Kansas City Ry. Co. v. Kansas, 240 U.S. 227, 231, аnd cases cited. Plainly, the operation of appellant‘s pipe line is interstate commerce and beyond the power of State taxation. Eureka Pipe Line Co. v. Hallanan, 257 U.S. 265, 272; United Fuel Gas. Co. v. Hallanan, 257 U.S. 277. But the contention in justification of the tax is that appellant is also engaged in doing local business, the basis of such contention being the facts concerning its ownership and use of property, other than the pipe line, and its various acts and activities within the State hereinbefore recited; and, further, that the purposes for which it is incorporated, as declared in its articles, comprehend other activities than that of transporting petroleum, namely, the acquisition and operation of telegraph and telephone lines, dealing in and transporting merchandise, etc.
An extended review of the decisions of this Court dealing with this phase of the subject is not necessary. All proceed from the same principles, but range themselves on one side or the other of the line as the facts do or do not demonstrate that the tax as a practical matter con-
“Was the tax assessed against the company for keeping an office in Philadelphia, for the use of its officers, stockholders, agents and employés, a tax upon the businеss of the company? In other words, was such tax a tax upon any of the means or instruments by which the company was enabled to carry on its business of interstate commerce? We have no hesitancy in answering
that question in the affirmative. What was the purpose of the company in establishing an office in the city of Philadelphia? Manifestly for the furtherance of its business interests in the matter of its commercial relations. . . . Again, the plaintiff in error does not exercise, or seek to exercise, in Pennsylvania any privilege or franchise not immediately connected with interstate commerce and required for the purposes thereof. Before establishing its office in Philadelphia it obtained from the secretary of the Commonwealth the certificate required by the act of the State legislature of 1874 enabling it to maintain an office in the State. That office was maintained because of the necessities of the interstate business of the company, and for no other purpose. A tax upon it was, therefore, a tax upon one of the means or instrumentalities of the сompany‘s interstate commerce; and as such was in violation of the commercial clause of the Constitution of the United States.”
Heyman v. Hays, 236 U.S. 178, 185-186, involved a county privilege tax for carrying on a liquor business. The complainant was a liquor merchant who sold no liquor directly or indirectly within the State but conducted a mail order business with persons in other States exclusively. The effort to sustain the tax was upon the grounds that complainant had a stock of goods within the State susceptible of being sold therein, that care and attention for the purpose of packing and otherwise must necessarily be given these goods, that orders for shipment were received in the State, and that a clerical force or other assistance was maintained within the State to keep accounts, supervise the business, receive the price resulting from shipments, and so on. This Court said that assuming these facts they did not take the business out of the protection of the commerce clause (p. 186): “We reach this conclusion because we are of opinion that giving the fullest effect to thе conditions stated they
The present case comes within the reasoning of the two decisions last cited. The business actually carried on by appellant was exclusively in interstate commerce. The maintеnance of an office, the purchase of supplies, employment of labor, maintenance and operation of telephone and telegraph lines and automobiles, and appellant‘s other acts within the State, were all exclusively in furtherance of its interstate business; and the property itself, however extensive or of whatever character, was likewise devoted only to that end. They were the means and instrumentalities by which that business was done and in no proper sense constituted, or contributed to, thе doing of a local business. The protection against imposition of burdens upon interstate commerce is practical and substantial and extends to whatever is necessary to the complete enjoyment of the right protected. Heyman v. Hays, supra, p. 186.
The court below grounded its decision chiefly upon Cheney Brothers Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U.S. 147; but a review of that case will clearly demonstrate that it cannot be given the effect thus ascribed to it. Seven foreign corporations sought to avoid a Massachusetts excise tax on the ground, among others, that, as imposed, it contravened the commerce clause of the Constitution. This Court held the tax invalid as to one of the corporations and sustained it as to the other six. The first of the six kept a stock of machine parts in the State which were sold both within and without the State, and the court simply held that the portion of the business which was purely local was subject to local taxation. The
Some stress is laid upon the fact that the objects and purposes specified in appellant‘s articles of incorporation are not confined to the transportation of petroleum but include the doing оf other business local in character. As to this, it is enough to say that none of these powers were in fact exercised in the State of Missouri; and so
Nor is it material that appellant applied for and received a Missouri license or thаt it had the power thereunder to exercise the right of eminent domain. These facts could not have the effect of conferring upon the State an authority, denied by the Federal Constitution, to regulate interstate commerce. The State has no such power even in the case of domestic corporations. See Philadelphia S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U.S. 326, 342. The statute as applied to appellant is unconstitutional.
Reversed.
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, dissenting.
The Court assumes, without discussion, that if, in Missouri, the company is engaged exclusively in interstate commerce, the tax assessed upon the Ozark Company is bad. It concludes, upon discussion, that the business actuаlly done by the company within that State is exclusively interstate commerce, because the article with which it deals is not produced within Missouri and the physical operations of the company within the State relate directly or indirectly to transporting the article through it. Under the rule applied, every tax laid by any State upon the corporate franchise (properly so-called) of every corporation, domestic or foreign, must be void, in the absence of congressional authorization, where the corporation is actually engaged exclusively in what is deemed interstate commerce. I find in the Constitution no warrant for the assumption which leads to such a result.
The tax assailed is not laid upon the occupation, as was that in Texas Transport & Terminal Co. v. New
The immunity from state taxation accorded is not that enjoyed by federal instrumentalities in the absence of legislation by Congress authorizing such taxation. See Thomson v. Pacific Railroad, 9 Wall. 579. It is not the immunity of a federal corporate franchise, as in California v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 127 U.S. 1, 42. It has not the support of congressional action. The tax is held void solely on the ground that it is obnoxious to the Commerce Clause. A state tax is obnoxious to that provision of the Federal Constitution only if it directly burdens interstate commerce, or (where the burden is indirect) if it obstructs or discriminates against such commerce. Here, there is no contention that, in fаct, the tax assessed either obstructs, or appreciably burdens, interstate commerce. The tax is trifling in amount.1
Can it be said that this tax directly burdens interstate commerce? A tax is a direct burden, if laid upon the operation or act of interstate commerce. Thus, a tax is a direct burden where it is upon property moving in interstate commerce, Champlain Realty Co. v. Brattleboro, 260 U.S. 366; Eureka Pipe Line Co. v. Hallanan, 257 U.S. 265; United Fuel Gas Co. v. Hallanan, 257 U.S. 277; or where, like a gross-receipts tax, it lays a burden upon every transaction in such commerce, Crew Levick Co. v. Pennsylvania, 245 U.S. 292, 297. But a tax is not a direct burden merely because it is laid upon an indispensable instrumentality of such commerce, or because it arises exclusively from transactions in interstate commerce. Thus, a tax is valid although imposed upon property used exclusively in interstate commerce, Transportation Co. v. Wheeling, 99 U.S. 273, 284; Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. Virginia, 198 U.S. 299, 306; or, although laid upon net-income derived exclusively from interstate commerce, United States Glue Co. v. Oak Creek, 247 U.S. 321; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 57. Compare Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165; Wagner v.
I find in the Commerce clause no warrant for thus putting a State to the choice of either abandoning the corporate franchise tax or discriminating against intrastate commerce;4 nor for denying to a State the right to encourage the conduct of business by natural persons through imposing, for the enjoyment of the corporate privilege, an annual tax so small that it cannot conceivably be deemed an obstruction of interstate commerce.