Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. United States

Citations: 259 U.S. 296; 42 S. Ct. 511; 66 L. Ed. 948; 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2484; 2 C.B. 347; 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 3172; 5 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 1389Docket: 207

Court: Supreme Court of the United States; May 29, 1922; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Fidelity Deposit Company of Maryland filed a suit in the Court of Claims to recover $8,300 in bankers' special taxes paid between 1898 and 1901 under the Spanish War Revenue Act. The company argued for a refund based on a 1912 Act, stating that the taxes were assessed on capital not used in banking operations, as its banking department operated solely on depositors' funds. The Secretary of the Treasury rejected the refund request in 1917, and the company initiated legal proceedings in 1918. The government contended that the taxes were legitimate and that the claim was barred by a two-year statute of limitations. The lower court dismissed the petition without providing an opinion, referencing a previous case. The core issue is whether the Fidelity Company employed its capital in banking as defined by the 1898 Act. The company paid taxes based on varying amounts of capital declared for each year in question, asserting that none of its own capital was utilized in the banking department. The court did not make specific findings on this matter, and the company sought further factual determinations regarding the use of its capital in banking activities and the net income from its surety business during the relevant years.

The court established that the banking department's annual net income was significantly less important than the surety business in terms of volume and profits. It indicated that if specific findings on these matters were necessary for a proper case determination, the issue should be remanded for further examination, as requests for such findings were timely made in both lower and current courts. The government argued that all capital and surplus were legally employed in banking, asserting that "used" and "employed" should not be equated. It claimed that the entire capital was available for banking operations and inherently enhanced the banking department's credit, regardless of actual usage. The government contended that the tax was based on a bank's usage of capital, and a company cannot reduce its tax liability by demonstrating engagement in multiple business lines.

The Court of Claims found that the company's capital stock and surplus were each $1,000,000 in 1898, increasing to $2,000,000 and $2,550,000 by 1901, respectively. The proceeds from capital stock sales and surplus were invested in real estate and securities, designated as "Capital Stock Investments," with related financial operations recorded separately from other business activities. The banking department's operations were also distinctly recorded. In 1901, deposits exceeded $4,000,000, with funds invested in stocks and bonds, while expenses were allocated to the respective departments. Although expenses might have originated from a common fund, records maintained accountability for each department's income. The court could not legally conclude that all of the Fidelity Company's capital was utilized for banking, nor that the taxable amount was adequately represented by the capital used, noting that capital may be engaged in banking without being used strictly for loans or direct transactions. Money held as reserves is also considered employed in banking.

Capital invested in securities can be utilized in banking to enhance the banker's creditworthiness and facilitate the acquisition of funds for banking operations. Such securities maintain their status as capital employed in banking, even if classified as assets of a different department. In a company focused exclusively on banking, all capital, regardless of its investment form, is considered capital employed in banking without needing to investigate specific uses. Conversely, if a company operates multiple distinct businesses requiring credit, the common capital cannot be categorized solely as capital for one department. In such cases, expenses related to common capital are typically allocated across the various departments. Courts and legislatures recognize this apportionment, particularly when assessing taxation based on a corporation's tangible and intangible properties across different states. While foreign corporations are taxed on capital used within a state, it would be unreasonable to tax all a corporation's capital in every state based solely on its potential availability for business operations. The 1898 Act applies to both individual bankers and corporations, suggesting that Congress did not intend to tax an individual banker’s entire net property as capital employed in banking, even if such wealth might support their banking operations. Lower courts have affirmed that the apportionment of capital among departments for taxation is valid and that determining the extent of capital used in banking is a factual matter. The Court of Claims' findings do not conclusively establish that none of the capital was employed in banking, necessitating further fact-finding to assess potential recoverable sums, unless the government claims the issue is barred by the two-year statute of limitations.

The cause of action is asserted to have accrued on May 22, 1914, which is six months post the claim's presentation to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The applicable statute of limitations is the two-year period outlined in section 3227 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. 5950). The subsequent rejection of the claim by the Treasury Department in April 1917 is deemed irrelevant, leading to the conclusion that the suit initiated in July 1918 is barred. This interpretation aligns with the Court of Claims' reasoning in Kahn v. United States. However, precedent set in Sage v. United States indicates that a six-year statute of limitations applies to cases under the Act of July 27, 1912. A motion to remand has been granted, directing new findings of fact to be made, and if necessary, to adjust the judgment to align with the court's opinion. Additional case references include various decisions involving trust companies that provide context for the legal principles discussed.