CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


CHASE MANHATTAN BANK V. FINANCE ADM'R, 440 U. S. 447 (1979)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 440 U. S. 447 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Chase Manhattan Bank v. Finance Adm'r, 440 U.S. 447 (1979)

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Finance Administrator

of the City of New York

No. 77-1659

Decided March 5, 1979

440 U.S. 447

Syllabus

Petitioners, national banks that lease offices and maintain their principal places of business in New York City, brought the present action after the city had assessed them for its commercial rent and occupancy tax for the period June 1, 1970, through May 31, 1972. The New York Court of Appeals held that the tax could be imposed pursuant to Pub.L. 91156, as amended, which provided that, as of January 1, 1973, national banks were to be treated as state banks for the purposes of state tax laws, and which contained temporary provisions that enabled States to tax national banks on a more limited basis from its date of enactment, December 24, 1969, until January 1, 1973. A saving clause, however, prevented the imposition prior to January 1, 1973, of any tax in effect prior to the enactment of Pub.L. 91-156, unless such imposition was authorized by subsequent "affirmative action" of the state legislature.

Held:

1. The disputed tax could not be imposed on petitioners prior to January 1, 1973, because the affirmative action requirement of the saving clause was not satisfied by a mere rate increase in the city's commercial rent tax passed subsequent to Pub.L. 91-156. The affirmative action provision was designed to require the States, when imposing new taxes on national banks prior to January 1, 1973, to consider the impact of such taxes on the existing balance of taxation between national and state banks, and nothing in the legislative history of the rate increase suggests that Pub.L. 91-156 was given the slightest attention.

2. The city's commercial rent and occupancy tax is not a tax on "tangible personal property" within the meaning of the provisions of Pub.L. 91-156 that render the saving clause prohibition inapplicable to such a tax. The question is one of federal law; and, for the purposes of Pub.L. 91-156, Congress did not consider real estate occupancy taxes to be taxes on tangible personal property.

Certiorari granted; 43 N.Y.2d 425, 372 N.E.2d 789, reversed. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 440 U. S. 448





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED