The LOgiBl8t~O has power to Ol8SSltg th. sub- &vets of occupatla taxes, and the omrldorrtiaas upas *2 Emorabl@ Homr LeaiaN, Spaakar, Page 2

rhiah auah ala88Ifiaatia%.8 shall bo nnde &re primrrlly for the detarmlnatlm of the bglalature, aubjact to the rule that tha claaaIflaatlon mat find a reaaaasble baais In the mture of the bualmasos alesaIfIed. Teua Con&my v. staphus, 100 Tax. 628,,103 9. W. 481.

EtLfferonaea In the amthoda or conducting bual- nea aea am l uatdned aa supporting claaaificrtim for the purpaea of 1evJrine ocauptian tffes. Hurt v. Cooper (Cont. 110 5. W. (26) 8%~ State Board of Tax Cottaalaalmera App.), v. Jackson, (U.S.) 75 L. Ed. 1248. of the Stato of mdl8na

Sn the cam of' Hwt v. Cooper, sqmi, st pge 901, the court obsemaa that dlfferancea ir the profit8 derived lag be taken into oonaIderatIcm by the LegI8lotua-e In anidng al~aifloatl~a for tho pu~poae of levying ocoupatim tax08 and detsmnlning the mount of tax to be laid upon ssah.

The following c8aaa sustain pecuniary profit aa a reaaamble baa18 for claaaiflaatlon for purpoaca of taxa- tllat. Citltana Telephme Co-y v, Fuller, 229 U. 5. 322, 57 L. Ed. l206j Iovo Mutual Tornado Inaurmxe Association v. Oilbert, I.29 Iova 658, 106 H. U. 153; State P. Minnesota Fartaera lltttual Inawanca Cornpony, 145 Wm. 231, 176 II. W. 796, Rorthveatartt Blasonls Aid Association v. WtddIll, 138 x00 :a; 4gos: u. 648; Bankers Life Company v. Chorn (Ho.)

. . .

You are therefore advlasd that, ln our opinicn, the IegIalature may claaalf7 concerns in the sam general line of business according to vhether the bilsineaa Is done for profit or not, for the y.w.m3e cl," levying Bn ocsupa- tian tax.

Y,;lJrs very truly 8. W. Fairchild fissistant RWFtIM

APPRlWED MY 1, 1341 APPROV%D: OPWIOFI COM?UTTXZ

By: - i3. W. E., Chairmu