Petroleum Navigation Co. v. Henneford
55 P.2d 1056
Wash.
1936
Check Treatment

Lead Opinion

Millard, C. J.

Under the provisions of title 17, chapter 180, Laws of 1935, p. 706, Rem. 1935 Sup., § 8370-1 [P. C. § 7030-61] et seq., an annual tax, measured by net income, is imposed on all national hanks and all other corporations doing business in this state, except those expressly exempted. Plaintiff, a domestic corporation, is engaged in the business of transporting freight, particularly petroleum and petroleum products, and it owns and operates storage plants in connection therewith. It is in competition with individuals, partnerships' or firms engaged in *496 like business but not transacting tbe same business as corporations or associations as defined by the act.

Plaintiff brought this action to enjoin tbe members of tbe state tax commission from enforcing tbe provisions of tbe above-described act against it and all other corporations .similarly situated transacting business in this state. Defendants’ demurrer to tbe complaint was overruled. They elected not to plead further, whereupon a decree was entered adjudging title 17, chapter 180, Laws of 1935, p. 706, Rem. 1935 Sup., § 8370-1 [P. C. § 7030-61] et seq., to be unconstitutional and perpetually restraining its enforcement. Defendants have appealed from that decree.

The determinative question is whether tbe tax imposed is an excise or a property tax. Tbe 1935 act imposes a tax, measured by tbe corporation’s net income, for tbe privilege of exercising its corporate franchise in this state, or for tbe privilege of doing-business in this state, in addition to annual license fees.

The same question was presented in tbe case of Aberdeen Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Chase, 157 Wash. 351, 289 Pac. 536, 290 Pac. 697, 71 A. L. R. 232. In that case, this court held that tbe 1929 enactment providing for a tax of five per cent upon tbe net income of banks and financial corporations was a property tax. Tbe 1929 act contained a recital that the tax was “for tbe privilege of exercising its corporate franchise within this state.”

Since tbe act imposes a property tax, it is subject to tbe uniformity clause of tbe fourteenth amendment of tbe state constitution. Aberdeen Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Chase, 157 Wash. 351, 289 Pac. 536, 290 Pac. 697, 71 A. L. R. 232; Burr, Conrad & Broom, v. Chase, 157 Wash. 393, 289 Pac. 551; Culliton v. Chase, 174 Wash. 363, 25 P. (2d) 81; Jensen v. Henne- *497 ford, ante p. 209, 53 P. (2d) 607. The property of the respondent may not be subjected to a tax not imposed upon the property of copartners and individuals. Burr, Conrad & Broom v. Chase, supra.

The question presented by this appeal being foreclosed by the authorities cited, it follows that the judgment must be, and it is, affirmed.

Main, Mitchell, Holcomb, Beals, and Steinebt, JJ., concur.

Tolman and G-eraghty, JJ., dissent.





Dissenting Opinion

Blake, J.

(dissenting) — I dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinions in Culliton v. Chase, 174 Wash. 363, 25 P. (2d) 81, and Jensen v. Henneford, ante p. 209, 53 P. (2d) 607.