Domenech v. National City Bank of NY, 294 U.S. 199 (1935)

294 U.S.
199
55 S.Ct. 366
79 L.Ed. 857
DOMENECH, Treasurer of Puerto Rico,

v.
NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK.
No. 386.
Argued Jan. 15, 16, 1935.
Decided Feb. 4, 1935.
Messrs. Wm. C. Rigby and Nathan R. Margold, both of Washington, D.C.,

for petitioner.
Mr. Earle T. Fiddler, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondent, a national banking association whose principal office and

place of business is in New York, applied for and obtained authority to operate
branches in Puerto Rico, pursuant to section 25 of the Federal Reserve Act as
amended (12 USCA 601).1 In 1932 the bank, as required by local law, filed
with the petitioner a sworn statement of assets as a basis of assessment for
taxation. By request, but under protest, it attached a memorandum stated to be
for information only, in which was set forth the amount of its total assets, to
sum of its capital, surplus, and undivided profits, the percentage the latter was
of the former, and the value of the assets in Puerto Rico. The Treasurer
considered the same percentage of the assets in Puerto Rico fairly represented
the capital there employed. The amount thus ascertained was $2,439,200,
which he divided into three items real property and buildings, $732,560; other
personal property, $1,611,400; and tangible personal property, $95,240.
Applying the statutory rate to $2,439,200, he fixed the tax at $62,122.98. Upon
appeal the Board of Equalization sustained the Treasurer's action. The bank
voluntarily paid $17,700.24, the amount attributable to real property and
buildings, but paid under protest the balance of $44,422.74 demanded in
respect of the personal property, and brought suit in the United States District
Court for Puerto Rico to recover the amount. Judgment in favor of the
Treasurer was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. We granted a writ of

certiorari,2 because the case involves the application and scope of acts of
Congress and their effect upon the taxing power of insular possessions of the
United States.3
2
Respondent concedes the competence of the island government to tax

generally,4 but asserts that R.S. 5219, as amended,5 prohibits a levy on the
capital of a national bank. The further point is made that section 320 of the
Political Code of Puerto Rico,6 to which the petitioner refers as his authority,
does not justify the imposition of the tax in question. This the petitioner denies,
and adds that the point was not presented below, and cannot, therefore, be
mooted here. In addition to contending that section 5219 as amended never
extended to Puerto Rico, he claims that, in any event, the section was rendered
inoperative in the island by section 25 of the Federal Reserve Act, as amended.7
We find it unnecessary to determine whether the tax was authorized by section

320 of the Political Code, since we are of opinion that Rev. St. 5219 forbids
its collection.
Taxation of a bank's branch is taxation of the bank itself. 8 The system of

national banks was intended to be coextensive with the territorial limits of the
United States, and, while the consent to taxation given by section 5219 refers in
terms only to the states, it extends also to territorial governments and sets the
limits of their exercise of the power.9 The form of taxation here imposed is not
permitted by the section.10 The organization of a national bank in Puerto Rico is
within the contemplation of the National Banking Act; but, if there were doubt
concerning the proposition, it finds support in legislation extending applicable
laws of the United States to the island.11 Although the maintenance of branch
banks is prohibited by the National Banking Act save under narrowly limited
conditions,12 their establishment in foreign countries, dependencies, and insular
possessions is authorized.13 Puerto Rico, an island possession, like a territory, is
an agency of the federal government, having no independent sovereignty
comparable to that of a state in virtue of which taxes may be levied. Authority
to tax must be derived from the United States. But like a state, though for a
different reason, such an agency may not tax a federal instrumentality. A state,
though a sovereign, is precluded from so doing because the Constitution
requires that there be no interference by a state with the powers granted to the
federal government.14 A territory or a possession may not do so because the
dependency may not tax its sovereign. True the Congress may consent to such
taxation; but the grant to the island of a general power to tax should not be
construed as a consent. Nothing less than an act of Congress clearly and
explicitly conferring the privilege will suffice. Not only do we find no such
statutory consent, but we are confronted by Rev. St. 5219 as amended, which
proprio vigore extends to territories, and the congressional declaration that it,
like other statutes of the United States, shall, if not locally inapplicable,15 apply
to Puerto Rico.
5
The petitioner insists that this section is locally inapplicable for two reasons.
The first is that the section was intended to apply only to taxation by the state,
territory, or governmental agency within whose borders the bank has its
principal place of business. The argument is that Puerto Rico cannot avail itself
of the consent to the taxing of respondent's shares, or the dividends thereon,
since the shares have no situs except New York, which is, in contemplation of
law, the association's home. The position is that the section must be available in
its entirety or else wholly inapplicable. We think otherwise. If Puerto Rico can
and does collect taxes of any of the types mentioned in Rev. Stat. 5219, as
amended, the mere fact that the situation prevents resort to one of the other
kinds thereby permitted does not make the statute a nullity in the island. The
record discloses that there has been assessed and collected a tax on the bank's
local real estate, as permitted by paragraph 3 of Rev. St. 5219, as amended,
and in addition an income tax upon the local income,16 as permitted by
paragraph 1(c). These seem to afford appropriate and equitable methods of
taxation in respect of the association's local branches and business.
Secondly, petitioner says section 25 of the Federal Reserve Act, as amended, 17

exhibits an intention on the part of Congress that for purposes of taxation
branches in dependencies or insular possessions shall be treated as if they were
branches established in foreign countries. The argument is that, as all are
mentioned several times in the section as 'foreign branches,' and since
confessedly the United States cannot limit or control the method or manner of
taxation of foreign branches, the purpose was not to do so with respect to those
in an insular possession. We think the contention unsound. It does not follow
from the lack of power of the United States in the one case that it did not intend
to exercise its undoubted power in the other.
We are of opinion that section 5219 prohibits the imposition of the tax in
question.18
The judgment is affirmed.
Infra, note 7.
293 U.S. 549, 55 S.Ct. 140, 79 L.Ed. -.
See Rule 38, par. 5(b), 28 USCA 354: 'Where a Circuit Court of Appeals * * *
has decided an important question of federal law which has not been, but should
be, settled by this court.'
The Organic Act for Puerto Rico (March 2, 1917, c. 145, 3, 39 Stat. 951, 953,
as amended by the Act of February 3, 1921, c. 34, 2, 41 Stat. 1096 (48 USCA
741) provides: 'No export duties shall be levied or collected on exports from
Porto Rico, but taxes and assessments on property, internal revenue, and license
fees, and royalties for franchises, privileges, and concessions may be imposed
for the purposes of the insular and municipal governments respectively, as may
be provided and defined by the legislature of Porto Rico. * * *' Express
authority to levy income taxes was added by the amending Act of March 4,
1927, c. 503, 1, 44 Stat. 1418, U.S.C. tit. 48, 741, 48 USCA 741.
Rev. St. 5219, as amended, U.S.C. Supp. tit. 12, 548 (12 USCA 548), so
far as material, is:
'The legislature of each State may determine and direct, subject to the
provisions of this section, the manner and place of taxing all the shares of
national banking associations located within its limits. The several States may
(1) tax said shares, or (2) include dividends derived therefrom in the taxable
income of an owner or holder thereof, or (3) tax such associations on their net
income, or (4) according to or measured by their net income, provided the
following conditions are complied with:
'1. (a) The imposition by any State of any one of the above four forms of
taxation shall be in lieu of the others, except as hereinafter provided in
subdivision (c) of this clause. * * *
'(c) In case of a tax on or according to or measured by the net income of an
association, the taxing State may, except in case of a tax on net income, include
the entire net income received from all sources, but the rate shall not be higher
than the rate assessed upon other financial corporations. * * *
'3. Nothing herein shall be construed to exempt the real property of associations
from taxation in any State or in any subdivision thereof, to the same extent,
according to its value, as other real property is taxed.'
'The assessment of every corporation, joint stock and limited liability company
not incorporated in Porto Rico but engaged in the transaction of business
therein, other than banks and banking institutions having a share capital, shall
be made in the manner. * * * All the shares of stock in banks and banking
institutions, whether of issue or not, existing by authority of the United States

or of any State of the United States, or of Porto Rico, or otherwise, and located
and doing business within Porto Rico, shall be assessed by the Treasurer of
Porto Rico to the owners thereof in the municipal districts where such banks are
located, and not elsewhere.
In the assessment of all Insular and municipal taxes that have been or may
hereafter be, duly imposed by law in such municipality, whether such owners
are residents of said municipality or not, all such shares shall be assessed at
their fair market value on the fifteenth day of January, first deducting therefrom
the proportionate part of the value of real estate belonging to the bank and the
persons or corporations who appear from the records of the bank to be owners
of shares at the close of business on the day next preceding the fifteenth day of
January of each year shall be taken and deemed to be the owners thereof for the
purposes of this section. Every such bank shall pay to the Treasurer of Porto
Rico, at the time in each year when other taxes assessed in the municipality
become due, the amount of the tax so assessed in such year upon the shares in
such bank. If such tax is not paid, the bank shall be liable for the same. * * *'
Compilation of Revised Statutes and Codes of Porto Rico of 1911, par. 2972, p.
559.
7
Act of December 23, 1913, c. 6, 25, 38 Stat. 273, as amended by Acts of

September 7, 1916, c. 461, 39 Stat. 755, and September 17, 1919, c. 60, 2, 41
Stat. 286, U.S.C. tit. 12, 601 (12 USCA 601).
'Any national banking association possessing a capital and surplus of
$1,000,000 or more may file application with the Federal Reserve Board for
permission to exercise, upon such conditions and under such regulations as may
be prescribed by the said board, either or both of the following powers:
'First. To establish branches in foreign countries or dependencies or insular
possessions of the United States. * * *'
McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 317, 318, 424, 425, 4 L.Ed. 579.
Talbott v. Silver Bow County, 139 U.S. 438, 443, 446, 448, 11 S.Ct. 594, 35
L.Ed. 210.
10
Owensboro National Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U.S. 664, 19 S.Ct. 537, 43 L.Ed.
850.
11
Compare Talbott v. Silver Bow County, supra. 23 Op.Attys.Gen. 169. And

compare 36 Op.Attys.Gen. 59. Section 9 of the Organic Act of March 2, 1917,
c. 145, 39 Stat. 954, U.S.C. tit. 48, 734 (48 USCA 734): 'The statutory laws
of the United States not locally inapplicable, except as hereinbefore or

hereinafter otherwise provided, shall have the same force and effect in Porto
Rico as in the United States, except the internal-revenue laws. * * *'
12
Rev. St. 5155, amended by Act Feb. 25, 1927, c. 191, 7, 44 Stat. 1224,
1228, and Act June 16, 1933, c. 89, 23, 48 Stat. 162, 189, 190 (12 USCA
36).
13
Supra, note 7.
14
McCulloch v. Maryland, supra; Des Moines National Bank v. Fairweather, 263

U.S. 103, 106, 44 S.Ct. 23, 68 L.Ed. 191.
15
Supra, note 11.
16
The tax in question was collected under the Act of Puerto Rico, No. 74, Laws
of Puerto Rico, 1925, pp. 400550. For a discussion of the implied authority
of the island to impose an income tax prior to the passage of the Act of March
4, 1927 (supra, note 4), see Domenech v. Havemeyer (C.C.A.) 49 F.(2d) 849,
850.
17
Supra, note 7.
18
Compare National City Bank v. Domenech, Treasurer, 47 Puerto Rico, 29.

National City Bank v. Posados, Collector, Supreme Court of the Philippine
Islands, September 21, 1934.

Domenech v. National City Bank of NY, 294 U.S. 199 (1935)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Domenech v. National City Bank of NY, 294 U.S. 199 (1935)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Domenech v. National City Bank of NY, 294 U.S. 199 (1935)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

294 U.S.

DOMENECH, Treasurer of Puerto Rico,

Messrs. Wm. C. Rigby and Nathan R. Margold, both of Washington, D.C.,

The respondent, a national banking association whose principal office and

Treasurer was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. We granted a writ of

Respondent concedes the competence of the island government to tax

We find it unnecessary to determine whether the tax was authorized by section

Taxation of a bank's branch is taxation of the bank itself. 8 The system of

Secondly, petitioner says section 25 of the Federal Reserve Act, as amended, 17

The judgment is affirmed.

293 U.S. 549, 55 S.Ct. 140, 79 L.Ed. -.

institutions, whether of issue or not, existing by authority of the United States

Act of December 23, 1913, c. 6, 25, 38 Stat. 273, as amended by Acts of

Compare Talbott v. Silver Bow County, supra. 23 Op.Attys.Gen. 169. And

of the United States not locally inapplicable, except as hereinbefore or

McCulloch v. Maryland, supra; Des Moines National Bank v. Fairweather, 263

Supra, note 11.

Compare National City Bank v. Domenech, Treasurer, 47 Puerto Rico, 29.

You might also like