Individual Incomes.--Consistently with due process of law, a State annually may tax the entire net income of resident individuals from whatever source received,[562] and that portion of a nonresident"s net income derived from property owned, and from any business, trade, or profession carried on, by him within its borders.[563] Jurisdiction, in the case of residents, is founded upon the rights and privileges incident to domicile; that is, the protection afforded the recipient of income in his person, in his right to receive the income, and in his enjoyment of it when received, and, in the case of nonresidents, upon dominion over either the receiver of the income or the property or activity from which it is derived, and upon the obligation to contribute to the support of a government which renders secure the collection of such income. Accordingly, a State may tax residents on income from rents of land located outside the State and from interest on bonds physically without the State and secured by mortgage upon lands similarly situated;[564] and the income received by a resident beneficiary from securities held by a trustee in a trust created and administered in another State, and not directly taxable to the trustee.[565] Nor does the fact that another State has lawfully taxed identical income in the hands of trustees operating therein necessarily destroy a domiciliary State"s right to tax the receipt of said income by a resident beneficiary. "The taxing power of a State is restricted to her confines and may not be exercised in respect of subjects beyond them."[566]
Likewise, even though a nonresident does no business within a State, the latter may tax the profits realized by the nonresident upon his sale of a right appurtenant to membership in a stock exchange within its borders.[567]
Incomes of Foreign Corporations.--A tax based on the income of a foreign corporation may be determined by allocating to the State a proportion of the total income which the tangible property in the State bears to the total.[568] However, such a basis may work an unconst.i.tutional result if the income thus attributed to the State is out of all appropriate proportion to the business there transacted by the corporation. Evidence may always be submitted which tends to show that a State has applied a method which, albeit fair on its face, operates so as to reach profits which are in no sense attributable to transactions within its jurisdiction.[569] Nevertheless, a foreign corporation is in error when it contends that due process is denied by a franchise tax measured by income, which is levied, not upon net income from intrastate business alone, but on net income justly attributable to all cla.s.ses of business done within the State, interstate and foreign, as well as intrastate business.[570] Inasmuch as the privilege granted by a State to a foreign corporation of carrying on local business supports a tax by that State on the income derived from that business, it follows that the Wisconsin privilege dividend tax, consistently with the due process clause, may be applied to a Delaware corporation, having its princ.i.p.al offices in New York, holding its meetings and voting its dividends in New York, and drawing its dividend checks on New York bank accounts. The tax is imposed on the "privilege of declaring and receiving dividends" out of income derived from property located and business transacted in the State, equal to a specified percentage of such dividends, the corporation being required to deduct the tax from dividends payable to resident and nonresident shareholders and pay it over to the State.[571]
Chain Store Taxes.--A tax on chain stores, at a rate per store determined by the number of stores both within and without the State, is not unconst.i.tutional as a tax in part upon things beyond the jurisdiction of the State.[572]
Insurance Company Taxes.--A privilege tax on the gross premiums received by a foreign life insurance company at its home office for business written in the State does not deprive the company of property without due process;[573] but a tax is bad when the company has withdrawn all its agents from the State and has ceased to do business, merely continuing to be bound to policyholders resident therein and receiving at its home office the renewal premiums.[574] Distinguishable therefrom is the following tax which was construed as having been levied, not upon annual premiums nor upon the privilege merely of doing business during the period that the company actually was within the State, but upon the privilege of entering and engaging in business, the percentage "on the annual premiums _to be paid throughout the life of the policies issued_." By reason of this difference a State may continue to collect such tax even after the company"s withdrawal from the State.[575]
A State which taxes the insuring of property within its limits may lawfully extend its tax to a foreign insurance company which contracts with an automobile sales corporation in a third State to insure its customers against loss of cars purchased through it, so far as the cars go into possession of purchasers within the taxing State.[576] On the other hand, a foreign corporation admitted to do a local business, which insures its property with insurers in other States who are not authorized to do business in the taxing State, cannot const.i.tutionally be subjected to a 5% tax on the amount of premiums paid for such coverage.[577] Likewise a Connecticut life insurance corporation, licensed to do business in California, which negotiated reinsurance contracts in Connecticut, received payment of premiums thereon in Connecticut, and was there liable for payment of losses claimed thereunder, cannot be subjected by California to a privilege tax measured by gross premiums derived from such contracts, notwithstanding that the contracts reinsured other insurers authorized to do business in California and protected policies effected in California on the lives of residents therein. The tax cannot be sustained whether as laid on property, business done, or transactions carried on, within California, or as a tax on a privilege granted by that State.[578]
When policy loans to residents are made by a local agent of a foreign insurance company, in the servicing of which notes are signed, security taken, interest collected, and debts are paid within the State, such credits are taxable to the company, notwithstanding that the promissory notes evidencing such credits are kept at the home office of the insurer.[579] But when a resident policyholder"s loan is merely charged against the reserve value of his policy, under an arrangement for extinguishing the debt and interest thereon by deduction from any claim under the policy, such credit is not taxable to the foreign insurance company.[580] Premiums due from residents on which an extension has been granted by foreign companies also are credits on which the latter may be taxed by the State of the debtor"s domicile;[581] and the mere fact that the insurers charge these premiums to local agents and give no credit directly to policyholders does not enable them to escape this tax.[582]
PROCEDURE IN TAXATION
In General
Exactly what due process requires in the a.s.sessment and collection of general taxes has never been decided by the Supreme Court. While it was held that "notice to the owner at some stage of the proceedings, as well as an opportunity to defend, is essential" for imposition of special taxes, it has also ruled that laws for a.s.sessment and collection of general taxes stand upon a different footing and are to be construed with the utmost liberality, even to the extent of acknowledging that no notice whatever is necessary.[583] Due process of law as applied to taxation does not mean judicial process;[584] neither does it require the same kind of notice as is required in a suit at law, or even in proceedings for taking private property under the power of eminent domain.[585] If a taxpayer is given an opportunity to test the validity of a tax at any time before it is final, whether the proceedings for review take place before a board having a quasi-judicial character, or before a tribunal provided by the State for the purpose of determining such questions, due process of law is not denied.[586]
Notice and Hearing in Relation to General Taxes
"Of the different kinds of taxes which the State may impose, there is a vast number of which, from their nature, no notice can be given to the taxpayer, nor would notice be of any possible advantage to him, such as poll taxes, license taxes (not dependent upon the extent of his business), and generally, specific taxes on things, or persons, or occupations. In such cases the legislature, in authorizing the tax, fixes its amount, and that is the end of the matter. If the tax be not paid, the property of the delinquent may be sold, and he be thus deprived of his property. Yet there can be no question, that the proceeding is due process of law, as there is no inquiry into the weight of evidence, or other element of a judicial nature, and nothing could be changed by hearing the taxpayer. No right of his is, therefore, invaded.
Thus, if the tax on animals be a fixed sum per head, or on articles a fixed sum per yard, or bushel, or gallon, there is nothing the owner can do which can affect the amount to be collected from him. So, if a person wishes a license to do business of a particular kind, or at a particular place, such as keeping a hotel or a restaurant, or selling liquors, or cigars, or clothes, he has only to pay the amount required by law and go into the business. There is no need in such cases for notice or hearing.
So, also, if taxes are imposed in the shape of licenses for privileges, such as those on foreign corporations for doing business in the State, or on domestic corporations for franchises, if the parties desire the privilege, they have only to pay the amount required. In such cases there is no necessity for notice or hearing. The amount of the tax would not be changed by it."[587]
Notice and Hearing in Relation to a.s.sessments
"But where a tax is levied on property not specifically, but according to its value, to be ascertained by a.s.sessors appointed for that purpose upon such evidence as they may obtain, a different principle comes in.
The officers in estimating the value act judicially; and in most of the States provision is made for the correction of errors committed by them, through boards of revision or equalization, sitting at designated periods provided by law to hear complaints respecting the justice of the a.s.sessments. The law in prescribing the time when such complaints will be heard, gives all the notice required, and the proceeding by which the valuation is determined, though it may be followed, if the tax be not paid, by a sale of the delinquent"s property, is due process of law."[588]
Nevertheless, it has never been considered necessary to the validity of a tax that the party charged shall have been present, or had an opportunity to be present, in some tribunal when he was a.s.sessed.[589]
Where a tax board has its time of sitting fixed by law and where its sessions are not secret, no obstacle prevents the appearance of any one before it to a.s.sert a right or redress a wrong; and in the business of a.s.sessing taxes, this is all that can be reasonably asked.[590] Nor is there any const.i.tutional command that notice of an a.s.sessment as well as an opportunity to contest it be given in advance of the a.s.sessment. It is enough that all available defenses may be presented to a competent tribunal during a suit to collect the tax and before the demand of the State for remittance becomes final.[591] A hearing before judgment, with full opportunity to submit evidence and arguments being all that can be adjudged vital, it follows that rehearings and new trials are not essential to due process of law.[592] One hearing is sufficient to const.i.tute due process;[593] and the requirements of due process are also met if a taxpayer, who had no notice of a hearing, does receive notice of the decision reached thereat, and is privileged to appeal the same and, on appeal, to present evidence and be heard on the valuation of his property.[594]
Notice and Hearing in Relation to Special a.s.sessments
However, when a.s.sessments are made by a political subdivision, a taxing board or court, according to special benefits, the property owner is ent.i.tled to be heard as to the amount of his a.s.sessments and upon all questions properly entering into that determination.[595] The hearing need not amount to a judicial inquiry,[596] but a mere opportunity to submit objections in writing, without the right of personal appearance, is not sufficient.[597] If an a.s.sessment for a local improvement is made in accordance with a fixed rule prescribed by legislative act, the property owner is not ent.i.tled to be heard in advance on the question of benefits.[598] On the other hand, if the area of the a.s.sessment district was not determined by the legislature, a landowner does have the right to be heard respecting benefits to his property before it can be included in the improvement district and a.s.sessed; but due process is not denied if, in the absence of actual fraud or bad faith, the decision of the agency vested with the initial determination of benefits is made final.[599] The owner has no const.i.tutional right to be heard in opposition to the launching of a project which may end in a.s.sessment; and once his land has been duly included within a benefit district, the only privilege which he thereafter enjoys is to a hearing upon the apportionment; that is, the amount of the tax which he has to pay.[600]
Nor can he rightfully complain because the statute renders conclusive, after said hearing, the determination as to apportionment by the same body which levied the a.s.sessment.[601]
More specifically, where the mode of a.s.sessment resolves itself into a mere mathematical calculation, there is no necessity for a hearing.[602]
Statutes and ordinances providing for the paving and grading of streets, the cost thereof to be a.s.sessed on the front foot rule, do not, by their failure to provide for a hearing or review of a.s.sessments, generally deprive a complaining owner of property without due process of law.[603]
In contrast, when an attempt is made to cast upon particular property a certain proportion of the construction cost of a sewer not calculated by any mathematical formula, the taxpayer has a right to be heard.[604]
Sufficiency and Manner of Giving Notice
Notice, insofar as it is required, may be either personal, or by publication, or by statute fixing the time and place of hearing.[605] A State statute, consistently with due process, may designate a corporation as the agent of a nonresident stockholder to receive notice and to represent him in proceedings for correcting a.s.sessments.[606]
Also "where the State * * * [desires] to sell land for taxes upon proceedings to enforce a lien for the payment thereof, it may proceed directly against the land within the jurisdiction of the Court, and a notice which permits all interested, who are "so minded," to ascertain that it is to be subjected to sale to answer for taxes, and to appear and be heard, whether to be found within the jurisdiction or not, is due process of law within the Fourteenth Amendment * * *."[607] A description, even though it not be technically correct, which identifies the land will sustain an a.s.sessment for taxes and a notice of sale therefor when delinquent. If the owner knows that the property so described is his, he is not, by reason of the insufficient description, deprived of his property without due process. Where tax proceedings are _in rem_, owners are bound to take notice thereof, and to pay taxes on their property, even if a.s.sessed to unknown or other persons; and if an owner stands by and sees his property sold for delinquent taxes, he is not thereby wrongfully deprived of his property.[608]
Sufficiency of Remedy
When no other remedy is available, due process is denied by a judgment of a State court withholding a decree in equity to enjoin collection of a discriminatory tax.[609] Requirements of due process are similarly violated by a statute which limits a taxpayer"s right to challenge an a.s.sessment to cases of fraud or corruption,[610] and by a State tribunal which prevents a recovery of taxes imposed in violation of the Const.i.tution and laws of the United States by invoking a State law limiting suits to recover taxes alleged to have been a.s.sessed illegally to taxes paid at the time and in the manner provided by said law.[611]
Laches
Persons failing to avail themselves of an opportunity to object and be heard, cannot thereafter complain of a.s.sessments as arbitrary and unconst.i.tutional.[612] Likewise a car company, which failed to report its gross receipts as required by statute, has no further right to contest the State comptroller"s estimate of those receipts and his adding thereto the 10% penalty permitted by law.[613]
Collection of Taxes
To reach property which has escaped taxation, a State may tax the estates of decedents for a period anterior to death and grant proportionate deductions for all prior taxes which the personal representative can prove to have been paid.[614] Collection of an inheritance tax also may be expedited by a statute requiring the sealing of safe deposit boxes for at least ten days after the death of the renter and obliging the lessor to retain a.s.sets found therein sufficient to pay the tax that may be due the State.[615] Moreover, with a view to achieving a like result in the case of gasoline taxes, a State may compel retailers to collect such taxes from consumers and, under penalty of a fine for delinquency, to remit monthly the amounts thus collected.[616] Likewise, a tax on the tangible personal property of a nonresident owner may be collected from the custodian or possessor of such property, and the latter, as an a.s.surance of reimburs.e.m.e.nt, may be granted a lien on such property.[617] In collecting personal income taxes, however, most States require employers to deduct and withhold the tax from the wages of only nonresident employees; but the duty thereby imposed on the employer has never been viewed as depriving him of property without due process of law, nor has the adjustment of his system of accounting and paying salaries which withholding entails been viewed as an unreasonable regulation of the conduct of his business.[618]
As a State may provide in advance that taxes shall bear interest from the time they become due, it may with equal validity stipulate that taxes which have become delinquent shall bear interest from the time the delinquency commenced. Likewise, a State may adopt new remedies for the collection of taxes and apply these remedies to taxes already delinquent.[619] After liability of a taxpayer has been fixed by appropriate procedure, collection of a tax by distress and seizure of his person does not deprive him of liberty without due process of law.[620] Nor is a foreign insurance company denied due process of law when its personal property is distrained to satisfy unpaid taxes.[621]
The requirements of due process are fulfilled by a statute which, in conjunction with affording an opportunity to be heard, provides for the forfeiture of t.i.tles to land for failure to list and pay taxes thereon for certain specified years.[622] No less const.i.tutional, as a means of facilitating collection, is an _in rem_ proceeding, to which the land alone is made a party, whereby tax liens on land are foreclosed and all pre-existing rights or liens are eliminated by a sale under a decree in said proceeding.[623] On the other hand, while the conversion of an unpaid special a.s.sessment into both a personal judgment therefor against the owner as well as a charge on the land is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment,[624] a judgment imposing personal liability against a nonresident taxpayer over whom the State court acquired no jurisdiction is void.[625] Apart from such restraints, however, a State is free to adopt new remedies for the collection of taxes and even to apply new remedies to taxes already delinquent.[626]
EMINENT DOMAIN
Historical Development
"Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment," the power of eminent domain, which is deemed to inhere in every State and to be essential to the performance of its functions,[627] "was unrestrained by any federal authority."[628] An express prohibition against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation was contained in the Fifth Amendment; but an effort to extend the application thereof to the States had been defeated by the decision, in 1833, in Barron _v._ Baltimore.[629] The most nearly comparable provision included in the Fourteenth Amendment, was the prohibition against a State depriving a person of property without due process of law. The Court was accordingly confronted with the task of determining whether this restraint on State action, minus the explicit provision for just compensation found in the Fifth Amendment, afforded property owners the same measure of protection as did the latter in its operation as a limitation on the Federal Government. The Court"s initial answer to this question, as set forth in Davidson _v._ New Orleans,[630] decided in 1878, was in the negative; and on the ground of the omission of the clause found in the Fifth Amendment from the terms of the Fourteenth, it refused to equate the just compensation with due process. Within less than a decade thereafter, however, the Court modified its position, and in Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. _v._ Chicago,[631] seven Justices unequivocally rejected the contention, obviously based on the Davidson Case that "the question as to the amount of compensation to be awarded to the railroad company was one of local law merely, and [insofar as]
that question was determined in the mode prescribed by the Const.i.tution and [State] law, the [property owner] appearing and having full opportunity to be heard, the requirement of due process of law was observed." On the contrary, the seven Justices maintained that although a State "legislature may prescribe a form of procedure to be observed in the taking of private property for public use, * * * it is not due process of law if provision be not made for compensation * * * The mere form of the proceeding inst.i.tuted against the owner, * * *, cannot convert the process used into due process of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation."
Public Use
While acknowledging that agreement was virtually nonexistent as to "what are public uses for which the right of compulsory taking may be employed," the Court, until 1946, continued to reiterate "the nature of the uses, whether public or private, is ultimately a judicial question."[632] But because of proclaimed willingness to defer to local authorities, especially "the highest court of the State" in resolving such an issue,[633] the Court, as early as 1908, was obliged to admit that, notwithstanding its retention of the power of judicial review, "no case is recalled where this Court has condemned as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment a taking upheld by the State court as a taking for public uses * * *"[634] In 1946, however, without endeavoring to ascertain whether "the scope of the judicial power to determine what is a "public use" in Fourteenth Amendment controversies, * * *" is the same as under the Fifth Amendment, a majority of the Justices, in a decision involving the Federal Government, declared that "it is the function of * * * [the legislative branch] to decide what type of taking is for a public use * * *"[635]
Necessity for a Taking
"Once it is admitted or judicially determined that a proposed condemnation is for a public purpose and within the statutory authority, a political or judicially nonreviewable question may emerge, to wit, the necessity or expediency of the condemnation of the particular property."[636] The necessity and expediency of the taking are legislative questions to be determined by such agency and in such mode as the State may designate.[637]
What Const.i.tutes a Taking For a Public Use
To const.i.tute a public use within the law of eminent domain, it is not essential that an entire community should directly partic.i.p.ate in or enjoy an improvement, and, in ascertaining whether a use is public, not only present demands of the public but those which may be fairly antic.i.p.ated in the future may be considered.[638] Moreover, it is also not necessary that property should be absolutely taken, in the narrowest sense of the word, to bring the case within the protection of this const.i.tutional provision, but there may be such serious interruption to the common and necessary use of property as will be equivalent to a taking. "It would be * * * [an] unsatisfactory result, if * * *, it shall be held that if the government refrains from the absolute conversion of real property to the uses of the public, it can destroy its value entirely, can inflict irreparable and permanent injury to any extent, can in effect, subject it to total destruction without making any compensation, because, in the narrowest sense of that word, it [has]
not [been] taken for the public use."[639]
Takings for a purpose that is public hitherto have been held to comprise the following: a privately owned water supply system formerly operated under contract with the munic.i.p.ality effecting the taking;[640] a right of way across a neighbor"s land for the enlargement of an irrigation ditch therein to enable the taker to obtain water for irrigating land that would otherwise remain valueless;[641] a right of way across a placer mining claim for the aerial bucket line of a mining corporation;[642] land, water, and water rights for the production of electric power by a public utility;[643] water rights by an interurban railway company for the production of power in excess of current needs;[644] places of historical interest;[645] land taken for the purpose of exchange with a railroad company for a portion of its right of way, required for widening a highway;[646] land by a railway for a spur track;[647] establishment by a munic.i.p.ality of a public hack stand upon the driveway maintained by a railroad upon its own terminal grounds to afford ingress and egress to its patrons.[648] Likewise, damages for which compensation must be paid are sustained by an upper riparian proprietor by reason of the erection of a dam by a lower mill owner under authority of a "mill act."[649] On the other hand, even when compensation is tendered, an owner of property cannot be compelled to a.s.sent to its taking by the State for the private use of another. Such a taking is prohibited, by the due process clause. Thus, a State, by law, could not require a railroad corporation, which had permitted the erection of two grain elevators by private citizens on its right of way, to grant upon like terms, a location to another group of farmers desirous of erecting a third grain elevator for their own benefit.[650]