McNally v. Field

Citations

• 119 F. 445
• 4 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 4093
• 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5286

Syllabus

<p>1. Internal Revenue—Administrator’s Bond—Liability to Tax—Construction op Statute.</p> <p>Act March 2, 1901 (31 Stat. 945 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2304]), being an amendment of Act June 13, 1898 (30 Stat. 460 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2284]), for the purpose, as shown in its title, of reducing taxation, provided: “Seven. Bond: For indemnifying any person or persons, firm or corporation who shall have become bound or engaged as surety for the payment of any sum of money, or for the due execution or performance of the duties of any office or position and to account for money received by virtue thereof, fifty cents.” The original act had added to this provision, “all other bonds of any description except such as may be required in legal proceedings, not otherwise provided for in this schedule.” Held that, in view of its purpose to reduce taxation, the amending act would be construed as referring only to bonds given to indemnify sureties, and would not cover the original bond of an administrator, which, by ruling of the commissioner of internal revenue, would have been exempted under the original act as a bond required in a legal proceeding.</p> <p>2. Same—Doubtful Constitutional Power.</p> <p>The constitutional power of congress to impose a tax on an administrator’s bond running to a state court having probate jurisdiction being questionable, that construction of the statute will be adopted which will relieve it from the imputation of an exercise of a doubtful power.</p> <p>8. Statute Imposing Tax—Ambiguity—Construction in Favor of Taxpayer.</p> <p>Where a statute imposing a tax is susceptible of two constructions, and the legislative intent is in doubt, the doubt should, as a rule, be resolved in favor of the taxpayer.</p>