Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.

Syllabus

<p>Brushaber v. Un. Pac. R. R., ante, p. 1, followed, to effect that the District Court has jurisdiction of an action by a stockholder against the corporation to enjoin' it from voluntarily paying the tax under the Income Tax Law of 1913 on the ground of its unconstitutionality.</p> <p>This court has, under § 238, Jud. Code, jurisdiction of a direct appeal from the judgment of the District Court refusing to enjoin a corporation from paying the tax under the Income Tax Law of 1913, in a suit brought by a stockholder on the ground of unconstitutionality of the statute, ■</p> <p>The Income Tax Law of 1913 is not unconstitutional as not conforming with, or being beyond the authority of, the Sixteenth Amendment. Brushaber v. Un. Pac. R. R., ante, p. 1.</p> <p>There is no authority for taking taxation of mining corporations out of the rule established by the Sixteenth Amendment; nor is there any basis for the contention that, owing to inadequacy of the allowance for depreciation of ore body, the income tax of 1913 is equivalent to one on the gross product of mines; and as such a direct tax on the property itself, and therefore beyond the purview, of that, amendment and void for want of apportionment.</p> <p>Independently of the operations of the Sixteenth Amendment, a tax on the product of the mine is not a tax upon property as such because of its ownership, but is a true excise levied on the result of the business of carrying on mining operations. Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399.</p>