Hawley v. City of Malden

Citations

• 232 U.S. 1
• 34 S. Ct. 201
• 58 L. Ed. 477
• 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1455

Syllabus

<p>The property of shareholders in their respective shares is distinct from the corporate property, franchises and capital stock of the corporation itself and may be separately taxed.</p> <p>Even if the constitutional validity of the taxation by a State of shares owned by its citizens of stock of foreign corporations having no property and doing no business therein has not been definitely raised and directly passed upon by this court, the existence of the authority of the State has invariably been assumed. Darnell v. Indiana, 226 U. S. 390.</p> <p>In dealing with the intangible interest of a shareholder there is no question of physical situs, and the jurisdiction to tax such interest is not dependent upon the tangible property of the corporation.</p> <p>A State has the undoubted right, in creating corporations, to provide for the taxation in that State of all their shares, whether owned by residents or non-residents. Corry v. Baltimore, 196 U. S. 496.</p> <p>Quaere, whether in case of corporations organized under state laws a provision by the State of incorporation fixing the situs of shares for the purpose of taxation, by whomsoever owned, would exclude taxation of those shares by other States in which the owners reside.</p> <p>WMle it .would be an advantage to the country and to individual States if non-conflicting principles of taxation could be agreed upon by the States so as to avoid the taxation of the same property in more than one jurisdiction, the Constitution of the United States does not go so far. Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U. S. 730.</p>