Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/629

593 JURISDICTION TO TAX 593 not situated within the state of his domicile, evidently was that in the one class of cases the property was not findable and taxable elsewhere, and in the other class of cases it could be found and was taxable in another state. There exists, however, as will be explained, a doctrine that certain intangible things may be taxed as property situated in a certain place, and thus subject to the taxing power of the sov- ereign, on the ground that they have a "business situs" there. A bank deposit used in the business has such a business situs, and may be taxed where the business is carried on and the deposit made. Yet in the recent case of Fidelity &" Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville ^^ it was held that such a deposit might be included in the tax laid upon the depositor at his domicile; Mr. Justice Hohnes remarking that the principle of Union Refrigerator Transit Co. V. Kentucky had not been pressed so far by the court. As a result of this decision it would seem that under no circum- stances will the doctrine of Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Ken- tucky be applied to a tax on intangible property, whether the property has a business situs or is for any other reason under the taxable control of a state other than that of the owner's domicile; but that the personal tax laid upon the owner at his domicile may include a tax upon all his intangible property, of whatever nature. II. Land Tax A state may levy a tax on all land situated within its boundaries.^^ The fact that the land is the property of a nonresident does not withdraw it from the taxing power of the sovereign of situs.^" Any interest in the land may be taxed to the owner of the interest ; such as the interest of a mortgagor or mortgagee, or the interest of a lessee. So of any incorporeal hereditament, or any privilege connected with the land. Thus where a corporation received a lease of certain land for the purpose of sinking oil-wells in it, and then assigned the lease to an individual, on consideration of re- ceiving a certain percentage of the oil produced, this rental in " 245 U. S. 54 (1917)- 70 N. J. L. 81, 56 Atl. 239 (1903)- '" Mt. Sterling O. & G. Co. v. Ratliff, 127 Ky. i, 104 S. W. 993 (1907); State v. Ross, 26 N. J. L. (2 Dutch.) 224 (1857); People v. Dunckel, 69 N. Y. Misc. 361, 125 N. Y. Supp. 38s (1910).
 * » Witherspoon v. Duncan, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 210 (i866); Centxal R. R. v. Jersey City,