Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/502

 § 479.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VIII. A state may lay a tax on the " corporate franchise or busi- ness" of a foreign corporation doing business within the state j 1 and when a tax is imposed on the " business " of a foreign corporation doing business in the state, the court will not pre- sume that the tax is imposed on the business done outside the state (which might be unconstitutional), although the tax is computed on the capital stock of the corporation. 2 A foreign corporation, by doing business within a state, does not bring its capital into the state constructively, so as to subject to taxa- tion its property outside of the state. 3 But it is held that a state can tax the entire capital stock of a corporation formed 46 Mich. 224. See Ohio & M. R. R. Co. v. Weber, 90 111. 443; Pullman's Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18; Massachusetts v. West. Un. Tel. Co., 141 U. S. 40; West. Un. Tel. Co. d. Taggart, 163 U. S. 1 ; cf. Com. v. Old Dom. Stm. Co., 128 N. C. 558. Where a corporation brings part of its movable property (railway cars) into a state, and there uses it, a state may levy a tax upon the aver- age amount of such property, al- though its identity is constantly changing, and although it is used in interstate commerce. American Ref. Transit Co. v. Hall, 174 U. S. 70; Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Lynch, 177 U. S. 149. But the United States may tax the interest payable on railroad bonds held by alien non-resident owners; and may compel the corporation to withhold such tax from the bondholders. U. S. v. Erie Ry. Co., 106 U. S. 327. But it is held that in assessing the value of stock for the purposes of state taxation, it is not illegal to in- clude real estate owned by the cor- poration, but situated outside of the state. Amer. Coal Co. v. County Commissioners, 59 Md. 185. A stat- ute provided that the personal prop- erty of corporations should be taxed in the town " in which it has its principal place of business or exer- 482 cises its corporate powers." Held, that the principal place of business, within the meaning of this statute, is the place where the governing power of the corporation is exer- cised. Middletown Ferry Co. v. Middletown, 40 Conn. 65. Not where the principal labor of the employes of the corporation is done. lb. Com- pare Oswego Starch Factory v. Dol- loway, 21 N. Y. 449. 1 Horn Silver Mng. Co. v. New York, 143 U. S. 305; Com'l Elec. L. & P. Co. v. Judson, 21 Wash. 49; Edison Elec. Co. v. Spokane Co., 22 Wash. 168; but see People v. Equitable Trust Co., 96 N. Y. 387. As to when a corporation may be said to be " do- ing business," see State v. Auniston Rolling Mills, 125 Ala. 121. 2 People v. Equitable Trust Co., 96 N. Y. 387; see Maine v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 142 U. S. 217. A railroad company is "doing business" in a state where part of its road is situ- ated. Erie Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 21 Wall. 492. Compare People v. Horn Silver Mining Co., 105 N. Y. 76. 3 Commonwealth v. Standard Oil Co., 101 Pa. St. 119. A corporation will be regarded as " doing business" in a state where its officers have their offices, where its directors hold their meetings, where its dividends are de- clared and paid, and large portions