Skip to main content
· 10/28/1915

Commonwealth v. Alden Coal Co.

Citations

  • 251 Pa. 134
  • 96 A. 246
  • 1915 Pa. LEXIS 647

Syllabus

<p>Constitutional law — Constitution of Pennsylvania, Art. IX, Sec. 1 — Uniformity of taxation — Act of J.une 27,1918, P. L. 689.</p> <p>1. The right of the legislature to classify subjects within its jurisdiction for the purposes of enacting laws is unquestioned, so too is it§ right to determine what things shall be subject to tax for public purposes; but in both instances the right can be exercised only in subordination to certain constitutional restrictions. The legislature may not by arbitrary discrimination subject certain property to tax and exempt other property of .the same class and similarly situated from an equal burden. It may discriminate between two of a class in this respect by method of classification, but it can do this only when a substantial difference exists, operating to make the distinction just and reasonable, and the legislation based thereon agreeable to something more than the legislative notion of expediency.</p> <p>2. In determining whether legislative classification is special and discriminatory, regard must be had to the purpose for which the legislation is designed. Differences which make classifications for some purposes proper, may furnish no reasonable basis for classification for other purposes; it is their relation to the end proposed by the particular legislation that determines whether classification is warranted.</p> <p>3. The Act of June 27, 1913, P. L. 639, providing for levying a tax on anthracite coal and for the collection and distribution of the same violates Section 1, of Article IX, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, directing that all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying- the tax, in that it makes an artificial and arbitrary distinction between anthracite and bituminous coal, subjecting the former to tax for public purposes and not the latter, and is void.</p> <p>Mr. Justice Frazer and Mr. Justice Potter dissent.</p>

Judges: Brown, Elkin, Frazer, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.