*1 was not described the order should appellant then have to the applied applicable commission as to prices raises a matter not If which is here involved. there no was there no applicable schedule, violation order appellant as charged.
I would thé order of court therefore reverse below sustaining commission’s refusal application renewal license. appellant’s v. Schaller, Appellant. November Argued P. Bald- J.,
Before Cunningham, Keller, *2 JJ. and Kenworthey, Hirt rige, Staptfeld, Rhodes, Doyle, Michael Francis him Gutter, Edward I. with for appellant. L. Shapiro, Abraham him
Abraham Wernick, City F. Burch, Francis City Solicitors, Assistant Solicitor for appellee. 1942: 13, March
Per Curiam, is affirmed. judgment
An filed later. will be opinion
Opinion by March 1942: Hirt, J., 30, defendant Throughout year lived in the City and worked marine as a engineer the Philadelphia Navy Yard, League a federal area on His Island, city. Navy near was the employer of the Department, instrumentality United States, for his entire income 1940, amounting $2,596.73, funds. This appeal federal raises the paid of the subject in- question tax of to a year by come for that virtue thereof, lV0° of an 1939: approved “impos- December ordinance salaries, a tax on ing purposes for revenue general earned commissions and other wages, compensations by after January Philadelphia, residents of 1,1940, on other compensa- commissions and salaries, wages, tion January earned after non-residents services for work done or Philadelphia, performed ......; filing rendered in Philadelphia, requiring the employers of returns and the of information giving and those subject tax; imposing employers said source; the tax at duty collecting providing administration, collection and enforcement on de- tax; imposing penalties.” said was not fendant’s the source deducted but he filed a employing him, return agency *3 in the delivered check to the Receiver of Taxes and his $38.95, of earnings. amount of being 1940 IV2 % he counsel, payment on advice of Thereafter, stopped in By of the this Hence, cheek. action assumpsit. of in the court disposed the case was lower agreement of in questions resulting on undisputed law, on facts is defendant This final judgment against for . $40.45. of addition the with interest but without the amount tax any non-payment. for penalty of is as it must
It that the conceded, be, constitu broad tional question whether State taxing unit may tax of incomes, regardless the fact that: they are derived from federal was funds, removed the decision of the United States Court on Supreme March 1939 in York People Graves v. State New ex rel. O’Keefe, of of U. S. S. 306 59 Ct. 595. Another basic question is eliminated the.decision our of Supreme Court Appellant et Dole, Pa. 375, A. 163 11 2d which determines the general constitution of the and ality validity question. ordinance the enact power ordinance was conferred upon to of the City Philadelphia by Act of August 5, 1932, L. as Sterling known 45, §1, quoted Act, part P.
279 contention margin.1 Defendant’s principal act, that- the of this under the delegated authority city, the tax power question. lacks levy Defendant of confer the act points purpose “to upon cities......the collect assess and power levy, subjects taxes of all taxation any has to tax......” and main- power Commonwealth legislation tains this was enacted at a time when there was from intergovernmental taxation, immunity on The State Maryland, M’Culloch v. 4 Dobbins v. Erie 16 Wheat. Peters County, He contends that these and other like decisions United States the state Supreme representing Court, of the must be read into And law at that the act. time, be re- delegated the State must hence, powers stricted to the of income not derived taxation argued federal sources. that since the State the time the Sterling power was without passed it not could delegate to another taxing authority. act, Section ......from and after the of this effective date any city
the council of or class have first second shall ordinance, authority by general purposes, for revenue levy, assess, collect, provide levying, assessment of, persons, transactions, occupa and collection such taxes tions, subjects privileges, personal property, within the limits class, determine, such first or second as shall *4 except that such levy, council shall not have assess collect, .provide levying, or the and- assessment and collection of, any privilege, transaction, subject tax on occupation, a or personal property, or may which is now or hereafter become subject to a tax State or license is fee...... the intention upon of this section to confer cities of the first and second classes power levy, upon any assess collect taxes and all subjects of taxation power Commonwealth has to tax subject but which it license, does not tax now or only to the foregoing provisions upon subject that tax which the Com may monwealth hereafter tax' or automatically license shall upon terminate' the effective date imposing of.'the State act new or license fee.
280 premise. a false founded upon
These contentions are in 1932 was power without They assume that State en time of the that, the tax and authorize de the above determined actment, disability its was that is to say cisions. The of assumption effect this cannot res judicata of now limitation of a principle This is extension now be questioned.. that fact limits and overlooks beyond all proper the constitu against offends Sterling whether the authorizing taxing tion of the United States, determined which can be a federal question salary, of the act a construction involving an action first that involving particular itself. case This is further the final order here of the act and phase ordi question. alone decide the can appeal, v. in Graves the decision nance after adopted was of it our construction as affected O’Keefe, supra, Act as Sterling into the be read ruling that will upon a The construction placed date of its enactment. of the statute and a part statute the courts becomes enacted. thereby Crawford, hence a of the law part Douglass County v. §184; Construction, Statutory Bank v. Benson, Eau Claire Nat. 677; 101 S. Pike, U. of this N. W. 604. In further 106 82 support Wis. 624, O’Keefe, Graves v. only point need conclusion we York statute, New income tax decided in 1939. The light enacted was appeal, that involved cases, Dobbins act yet M’Culloch and in 1934 a tax levied held to be sufficient to sustain late as as notwithstanding a federal salary, from federal were held salaries sources January 4, 1937, ex New York rel. State People be immune. S, et U. 57 S. 299 Ct. Rogers al., Graves former decision is When a overruled, the reconsidered will be considered pronouncement as the from the law rel. People ex Rice et beginning. Graves Y. S. affirmed 270 N. Y. 582; N. N. E. certiorari U. S. 683. 288; denied,
281 taxing power in this must be appeal unless, upheld this act, subject of taxation was excluded its operation either specifically necessary implica- tion. is one controlling therefore, of question, construction to determine legislative intent.
The Sterling
speaks
clear
unambiguous.
only
of terms.
broadest
Ordinarily, construction
of
a statute
legislative
determine
intent
is necessary
where it
will bear
or more
two
Com.
meanings.
ex rel.
v. Pommer et
Kelley
421,
330 Pa.
But assuming, Supreme the then of the United States decisions in 1932 not tax federal the State could Court, legislature it not the salaries, does follow provide did not in Act to Sterling intend for taxation of such income machinery in the meantime to the courts submission future, with im- thereafter or exemptions immunity as to existing is no evidence There pronouncement. judicial posed This subject person. favor of any in of any exception regarded as prospective must be therefore, legislation to all generally operation, applicable its intended by the includ- State, not preempted of taxation subjects the removal of the subjects not then taxable ing prior of the state of law immunity. The effect limit was not O’Keefe, most, Graves by the delegated could be of taxation which powers exercise of those hold the Act but Sterling merely of the State When the abeyance. disability powers no there was need incomes was removed, to tax federal incomes reach legislation for reenactment a originally broad powers granted, formerly exempt; regardless source, include all enough Graves for the purpose; sufficient were O’Keefe impeded a their flow. removed dam merely is that if the second contention even Defendant’s to tax fed Act clothed Sterling 9, 1940, on October Public incomes, Congress eral has affirma 14, Stat. U.S.C.A. 1060, No. 819, salaries earned prior tax on such prohibited tively area such as the a federal to December in effect, declared act, Yard. Navy 2 Concurring O’Keefe, opinion supra, p. Graves v. 489. residence within federal. area receipt or the n 'income from transactions occurring therein or “serv ices performed in such area” shall not relieve person liability any income tax levied by any duly constituted taxing further authority. act provides that shall be applicable to income re ceived after December The relevant sections of the act are quoted below.3 not to refer to the necessary reason for this act.
For our purpose we need only observe that it is no more than declarative of the existing law as established *7 v. Graves The provides act that it shall be O’Keefe. to income applicable received 1 940, after December 31, but nowhere in it there any is indication of congres intent sional that incomes earned thereto prior shall exempt. be The to power tax grant exemptions, except where there is constitutional is at least immunity, doubtful; United States Supreme Court in Graves v. referred to the question but did not find it O’Keefe necessary answer 478. Since this it, p. to act creates no it no exemption has to the application question in except to volved, recognize city’s to tax in power comes earned in federal a area after December 1940. We know no or prohibition exemption applicable similar incomes earned after the decision in Graves and prior that date. O’Keefe defendant contends
Finally, that, a any State view, 3 (a) person liability any No shall be relieved from income State, any by any duly taxing tax levied or constituted au thority jurisdiction therein, having levy tax, by such a reason residing receiving of his within a Federal area or income from occurring performed transactions area; or services such taxing jurisdiction such State or shall have full levy and collect such tax in' Federal area within such State to the same extent and with the though same effect as such area was not a Federal area.
(b) provision (a) of subsection applicable shall be only respect receipts with income or received after 3Í, December Government the Federal not burden may unit
taxing in the national defense engaged tax those with a in time of war. re- which defendant may wages
We assume are employer comparable from ceived his for like services. employers wages paid private of manufac- the profits If valid, his contention were materials would who war supply turers all others O’Keefe, pp. Graves from taxation. exempt be also language: in this refutes the argument income becomes property measured tax “is for his as compensation received when taxpayer of receiving the tax laid privilege services; and not from the from funds private is paid indirectly. either directly or government, funds qualified a approval, which once won The theory, economically on its is tax legally a tax on basis tenable......and longer no source in- immunity state constitutional for implying of an the national salary employe come is that governmental agency or of a government of the tax in some way passed burden economic the national government a burden on to impose so as *8 one government to an interference tantamount A of its functions.” in the performance the other could not. work $2,596.73 income of on an $38.95 result. we affirmed the judgment reasons these
For on March court lower Meray
Moyer Appellants. et