*1 undue regard discrimination. We the controversy open to doubt serious and further discussion of it seems unnecessary.
Affirmed. SAFE DEPOSIT AND OF TRUST COMPANY BAL-
TIMORE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. Argued No. October 1929. Decided November 1929. *2 Wickham, Jor- whom Messrs. J. Mr. Littleton M. Constable, P. Leake, Buford, Jr., Wm. A. S. dan . brief, appellant. on the Hurt, Jr., were Joseph M. *4 Mar- Miller, Jr., Mr. W. W. with whom R. Henry Mr. on brief, tin appellee. was *6 brief curiae, Bradford, as amicus filed
Mr. Bussell L. Trust of City Company, on of The Bank Farmers béhalf by as leave of court. York, Trustee, special New of Court Opinion McReynolds, Mr. Justice by the Chief announced Justice. upon appeal. petition
This is here properly cause for certiorari is therefore denied. 1920, Lucius J. then domiciled and
May Kellam, 4th, and residing County, Accomac transfеrred Virginia, Safe and of Deposit Company delivered to the Trust and of Maryland, sundry stocks bonds Baltimore, corpo- at thousand fifty dollars, valued to power rations investments, upon the following terms— change “ arising to the income collect therefrom'(cid:127) and ... may as chargeable such taxes thereon and paying аfter gross income, commissions on the to accumulate its 5% myself, the two that for benefit of sons of net income age who attained the say, Kellam, Jr., is Lucius J. 25, 1919, September on and Emerson Polk eight years of five Kellam, age years February attained the on who Kellam, Jr., and when the Lucius J. arrives at said him twenty-five years age, to dеliver to one-half hereby estate and one-half‘of principal conveyed the said accumulations income —the other half of the said re- principal and accumulations of income shall be tained said Trustee all income therefrom shall continue be accumulated until the said Emerson Polk twenty-five years Kellam arrives at of age when he-shall become entitled to the one-half of principal said so together accumulations retained with all further accum- If ulations thereon. either of said two sons shall die receiving before his share of said and accumu- principal then the same paid shall be over arid delivered lations, living children at and if death; his his either shall die receiving before his share without then issue, such share added to share of the shall be survivor and be held his use and benefit the same manner for precisely his share held.” original made no provision
The deed event death *7 under twenty-five sons without both issue. The donor to himself power revocation, but reserved without exer- in died 1920. cising it, Administration on his estate was in had Accomac and his County, Virginia, two sons are there. domiciled
Except changed by the reinvestment, Trust Com- has continued to hold the pany original securities in Baltimore, Maryland, and has paid the taxes regularly by that and City demanded State on account of them. for taxation in An assessment Accomac Vir County, years 1921, for the 1922, 1924 and ginia, 1923, 1925 upon corpus the the whole trust estate was by sustained court below—the highest the State tribunal to which the could be submitted. matter declared Sec. 2307, Vir (1919), Code as amended in ginia and 1923*, * (as Code By whom property amended). See. Va. listed; be to whom taxed —If property is to by be person owned a juris, by it shall be listed and sui taxed to If property him. be minor, by it by owned shall be listed and guardian taxed to his or any guardian trustee, has; he if he if has no or it be trustee shall by father, any his listed and taxed to if has; he father, if he no has not in and the demand adequate support applicable,. Amendment. Fourteenth conflict with the applied, and that, interpreted maintains so Appellant beyond the property wholly a tax lays upon statute offends consequently and of the State jurisdiction Amendment. Fourteenth in taxation subject are
Manifestly, securities in possession are the actual Maryland they where are thеy That legal Trust title. Company —holder questioned. Ganay is Maryland within De property within Vir- Lederer, nobody 250 U. Also, or or right to their control present possession, has ginia them to be' or to cause therefrom, receive income to. They her have no within borders. brought physically legal in fiction Virginia taxation unless legal situs for control- sequuntur personam applicable mobilia the two this, held ling. below, recognizing The court father’s conjunction in administrator of the sons, in fund Virginia really owned the estate —all domiciled — has; mother, any he by and taxed to his if shall be listed then it mother, it shall guardian, trustee, if has nor father nor he no property possession. in If by person to the be listed and taxed twenty-one years age property person over separate of a is the woman, trustee, and taxed married shall listed or a it they State; they and if have no this any in this trustee if have ease, to themselves. In State, and taxed either shall be listed it county city they reside; or where listed and shаll be taxed it *8 Virginia, property the shall be listed they if be non-residents of but city or wherein such resides. If the county in trustee taxed the and person, by it be of a deceased shall listed property be estate the possession, in and person taxed to the personal representative or by person. property dеceased If be owned- an of such estate committee, by be listed and his lunatic, it shall taxed to idiot or appointed, property then has been such shall be any; if if none possession. in person property If the by to listed and taxed by another, it shall benefit of be listed in trust for the held county city (except or of his residеnce in the taxed to trustee provided). hereinbefore and that reason of the fiction taxable fol- its situs lowed them.
We need not inquiry concerning make nice any ultimate or equitable ownership of the or securities exact nature of the interest held by the In the dis- sons. closed circumstances, we think that is not matter оf controlling importance.
Ordinarily
recognizes
this Court
that
fiction of
mobilia seqúuntur personam may be
in order
applied
to
determine the situs of intangible personal property for
taxation. Blodgett
Silberman,
v.
The power Virginia a tax lay upon the fair value any interest actually securities owned one her resident citizens is not presented now for considera- See Maguire tion. Trefry, supra. v.
A statute of a State which things undertakes tax wholly.beyond jurisdiction her or control conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment. Union Refrigеrator Transit Kentucky, 199 Co. v. Buck Beach, U. 204:
93 268 S. 409; Pennsylvania, Frick U. 392, 402, 408, S.U. v. 272 U. S. Doughton, & Trust Co. 473; Wachovia Bank v. 567, 575. be- property permanently located
Tangible personal latter not be taxed at the may owner’s domicile yond the Kentucky, Refrig. supra; Union Transit Co. v. place. Intangible prop- Pennsylvania, personal Frick supra. v. lo- where permanently a taxable situs erty may acquire cated, protected. Stempel, Orleans employed and New v. 177 County, U. S. 309; Washington 175 Bristol v. U. Comptoir Assessors v. National 133; State Board of Metropolitan 388; 191 U. S. Ins. v. d’Escompte, Co. Life 395; 205 U. S. L. G. Orleans, Liverpool & & Ins. New 221 Assessors, U. S. 346. Orleans Co. v. intangibles stocks, we must decide whether
Here — legal titlе the hands of the holder of the bonds—4n subject residence, at its not to definite taxable situs be the lat- equitable owner, may taxed at change by think in another State. We not. rea- domicile ter’s Refrig. this Court Transit v. led Union Co. which sons Pennsylvania, and Frick 199 U. S. Kentucky, of the maxim deny mobilia application S.U. tangibles intangibles apply to рersonam sequuntur They have possession. acquired situs appellant’s beneficial owners. The adop- from that separate “ contrary possibilities rule would involve of an of a tion ” permitting double taxa- character extremely serious And the fiction unjust oppressive. both tion, “ was intended con- sequuntur personam mobilia justice not controlling where does venience, it.” demand to rule the definitely seems of this Court opinion
No Miller, Blackstone v. now presented. point exact New York an of tax assessment U. S. sustained credits, declared to have taxable situs transfer upon the borders, a citizen of Illinois. will of under the within her *10 In Sohmer, v. 233 U. S. the tax Wheeler was not laid domicile, at but by owner’s wherein State deposited. securities were Bullen 240 S. Wisconsin, v. U. 625, involved an tax; inheritance the creator of the trust resided in Wisconsin at his death and an Illinois Com pany legal with then possession title held of the property in Chicago; but the creator had retained full powеr to revoke regain the trust and control. & Fidelity Columbia Louisville, Tr. Co. v. 245 U. S. sustained a tax at laid legal domicile of the owner. He had full power to in deposits control the St. Louis banks might have and brought jurisdiction. the entire fund within Kentucky’s Silberman, In Blodgett v. 277 U. S. the decedent —a resident of Connecticut —had control and present right arising to all bеnefits from the property. The title legal was not held by duty another with the retain posses .to sion, as in the present Moreover, cause. this Court did not thére determine that had a property taxable situs in New York. general statement
Any opinions above which may seem to interfere with the conclusion here an- nounced must be limited and precise confined to the situation under then consideration.
It unfortunate, would be perhaps amazing, if legal a originally fiction to prevent invented personalty from just escaping taxation, compel should us to accept irrational view that the same securities were within two States at instant the sаme and because this to uphold a double and oppressive assessment. judgment the court below must be reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings not incon- this opinion.
sistent
Reversed. Concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Stone.
I concur in the enough it'that, result. support in the stipulated record, the Virginia assessment was against levied trustee in Maryland upon' domiсiled se- it in held trust its exclusive by possession curities and an to tax there, attempt control so is forbidden as Brooke v. jurisdiction. Norfolk, without the property the question But the Fourteenth U. whether in Virginia, forbids a on the beneficiaries, Amendment tax they domiciled, equitable are measured their in- where terests, to me not to recоrd presented seems Court, under the settled rule of decision of this so, ought States, now be decided. Burton United U. S. *11 States, United U. S. 273, 279; 283, 296; Blair v. Flint 250 Co., States, 107; Light v. United Tracy Stone 220 U. S. v. 523, 538. 220 U. S. was attempt by Virginia equitable
No made to tax the thing the beneficiaries of the trust. the of That interests measure of the tax from the or the is different taxed beneficiaries, by thе as affected interests of equitable sufficiently from the specified contingencies, appears the well have been of different value may the one fact that to have fact, In the securities seem the other. than although equi- at full value assessed their been are less than whole. beneficiaries tablе interests its view the following own may Virginia, be that might tax the contingent interests, of vested and nature though they were the as interests of these beneficiaries that it has whole, present purposes it is sufficient but In the record present assumed to do face not so. far tax, how forbidden required speculate are not we jurisdiction, beyond upon property assessed ..the because be on may passed it bene- be because may upheld 96
ficiaries in equitable and the thus Virginia interests reached by indirection.
If the
were
question
here I should not
prepared
go so far
say
as to
that
equitable rights
in personam
beneficiaries of the
trust
might
have been taxed
at the place of their domicile
quite
much
debt
as a
secured
a mortgage on
in another
jurisdiction,
land
the fact that
the land
notwithstanding
is also taxed at
its situs.
Refrigerator
See Union
Transit Co.
Ken
v.
tucky,
U.
205;
Washington County,
S.
Bristol v.
Hotchkiss,
In neither case, if the threat of double taxation were con under the it is trolling, not, Fidelity which decisions & Louisville, Columbia Co. v. 245 U. S. 58; Cream Tr. Co., Wheat Grand Forks 330; Co. v. U. S. 325, Durr, Nat’l 99, 109; Citizens Bank v. U. S. cf. Swiss Oil Corporation Shanks, it 407, 413, 273 U. would seem that in real sense double any taxation, is there since legal protected interests and taxed taxing two jurisdictions are different.
Me. opinion. concurs in this Justice Brandéis Me. Justice Holmes: Special Appeals plainly right Court in hold- was
ing that an upon of trust conferred absolute gift deed *12 the two I beneficiaries, perhaps, though subject it, doubt to be a condition Per- upon subsequent. Gray, divested 1st 108. If the be petuities, ed., § beneficiaries could they at be for the of taxed all could taxed whole value in them, the because the whole title was property, even very' if liable to be divested at some-future time in a not probable event.
I am of that opinion they on can be taxed. principle I it In the do not think that that the place first matters only an owners, Virginia, equitable in have residing title. legal sure having trustee title and posses- To be
97 But be taxed there. may in Maryland sion оf the bonds Virginia by of reason right of that affect the does not of United I know the Constitution anything that Court, 104 Kidd Tax U. S. 592. Bonaparte v. States. Malden, Alabama, 730, Hawley 733. v. 732, v. 188 U. S. Forks, 232 1,S. 13. Cream Wheat Co. v. Grand U. Durr, v. 257 325, 330. National Bank S. Citizens U. Silberman, 277 10. 1, v. U. S. 99, Blodgett U. S. 109. Sohmer, case Wheeler v. S. with the last U. Compare 434. Virginia’s
I
no
fact
It is
power.
see
other
to cut down
has been
to
conception
applied
true that
domicil
it now established that
personal
is
tangible
property
if
tax
such
it is
property
State cannot
the owner of
But hitherto the
permanently situated
another State.
that
in a
tangibles
plain
decisions have been confined to
protection
their
another
way
рower.
and obvious
owed
v.
Kentucky,
Union
Transit
199 U.
Refrigerator
Co.
me
far
It seemed to
to discover
going pretty
limitation in the
It
even that
Fourteenth Amendment.
vistas to extend the restriction to stocks
bonds
opens
I
way
Blodgett
in a
that
cannot reconcile with
v. Silber
man,
generally
No. 1929 Decided November