{
  "id": 8606515,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Ex Rel. A. J. MAXWELL, Commissioner of Revenue, v. MARGARET H. TULL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Maxwell v. Tull",
  "decision_date": "1939-11-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "500",
  "last_page": "501",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "216 N.C. 500"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "61 A. L. R., 357",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "217 N. W., 407",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 Wis., 405",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wis.",
      "case_ids": [
        8693205
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wis/195/0405-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 S. E., 526",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 N. C., 601",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660576
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/169/0601-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 Atl., 697",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 Conn., 452",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Conn.",
      "case_ids": [
        497004
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/conn/85/0452-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 S. E., 235",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 N. C., 660",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272435
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/152/0660-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 266,
    "char_count": 4283,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.483,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.115162856034739e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5065998056257334
    },
    "sha256": "66dd82afbbdb52a9f0f14cbd7a28734d6c6889656b946e5aa269d2840c7791bb",
    "simhash": "1:2ddaae490300b008",
    "word_count": 724
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:30.134660+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Ex Rel. A. J. MAXWELL, Commissioner of Revenue, v. MARGARET H. TULL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nTbe pertinent clause in section 311% of tbe Bevenue Act of 1935 is, that \u201cincome from stock in foreign corporations, either in casb or stock dividends, . . . shall be subject to a tax of six per cent,\u201d etc.\nIt is tbe position of tbe petitioner that tbe Coca-Cola stock received by her from tbe Olympia Investment Corporation in 1935 was neither a \u201ccasb\u201d dividend nor a \u201cstock\u201d dividend of tbe disbursing corporation, and that therefore it was not subject to tax under tbe above provision of tbe Bevenue Act.\nTbe respondent concedes that it was not a stock dividend, Trust Co. v. Mason, 152 N. C., 660, 68 S. E., 235, but contends that it has all tbe characteristics of a casb dividend, Trust Co. v. Taintor, 85 Conn., 452, 83 Atl., 697, and was in fact such a dividend. Humphrey v. Lang, 169 N. C., 601, 86 S. E., 526. Additionally, it is tbe position of tbe respondent that tbe words \u201ceither in casb or stock dividends,\u201d appearing in said section, were not intended to be restrictive, but were inserted therein to make clear tbe taxability of stock dividends, all other dividends being regarded as casb or its equivalent. Morgan v. Wisconsin Tax Commission, 195 Wis., 405, 217 N. W., 407, 61 A. L. R., 357.\nWe think tbe tax in question must be upheld as a tax on tbe \u201cincome-from stock in foreign corporations.\u201d Tbe Coca-Cola stock was taken from tbe surplus assets of tbe Olympia Investment Corporation and immediately became tbe property of tbe petitioner. This was tbe equivalent of a casb dividend and in legal parlance is so classified. 11 C. J., 22. \u201cCasb dividends include all distributions of surplus assets, whether in tbe form of casb or property, taken from tbe body of tbe assets to become tbe property of tbe shareholders.\u201d Trust Co. v. Taintor, supra.\nTbe correct result seems to have been reached.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Gregory for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Murray Allen for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Ex Rel. A. J. MAXWELL, Commissioner of Revenue, v. MARGARET H. TULL.\n(Filed 22 November, 1939.)\nTaxation \u00a7 29 \u2014 When corporation pays as dividend stock of another corporation, such dividend is equivalent to a cash dividend.\nPlaintiff, owning stock in a foreign investment corporation, received as a dividend on such stock, stock of another foreign corporation. Held: The stock received as a dividend was taken from the surplus of the investment corporation and was equivalent to a cash dividend, and was taxable as income from stock in a foreign corporation under the provision of 311% Revenue Act of 1935.\nAppeal by defendant from Frizzells, J., at Chambers, 9 October, 1939. From Wake.\nPetition for refund of alleged overpayment of income tax.\nDuring the year 1935, the petitioner, Margaret H. Tull, was a resident of the State of North Carolina, and. as such, duly filed her income tax return for that year. Thereafter, and within the time allowed by law, the petitioner filed claim for refund, alleging that she had made an overpayment of the tax rightfully due by her.\nThe facts are not in dispute. Petitioner owned certain stock in the Olympia Investment Corporation, a foreign corporation, and received as a dividend from said corporation during the taxable year in question, 520 shares of the stock of the Coca-Cola Company, another foreign corporation, which, at the time of its receipt, had a market value of $43,355; and in filing her return, this amount was included therein as \u201cdividends from foreign corporations\u201d and a tax of $2,601.30 paid thereon.\nThe Olympia Investment Corporation was not domesticated in North Carolina during the year 1935 and paid no tax to this State on any part of its income for that year.\nThe petitioner contended before the Commissioner of Revenue that no income tax was laid upon dividends from stock in foreign corporations by the Revenue Act of 1935, save and except as provided in section 311% thereof, and that the stock in question did not come within the purview of this section.\nThe matter was heard by the Commissioner of Revenue on 28 June, 1939, and claim for refund denied. On appeal to the Superior Court of Wake County, the position of the Commissioner of Revenue was upheld. From this ruling, the petitioner appeals, assigning error.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Gregory for plaintiff, appellee.\nMurray Allen for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0500-01",
  "first_page_order": 566,
  "last_page_order": 567
}