Concordia Fire Insurance Co. v. Illinois ( 1934 )

Mr. Justice Van Devanter

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action of debt brought by the State of Illinois, in a court of that State, against the Concordia Fire Insurance Company, to recover taxes levied on the net receipts of the latter from its insurance agencies in Cook County, Illinois, during annual periods ending April 30 in each of the years 1923-1927. The defendant interposed a plea of nil 3-ebet. The cause was heard by the court without a jury under a stipulation entitling the defendant to introduce any evidence which would be admissible in equity under appropriate pleadings, and enabling the court to give effect to equitable principles and render judgment in conformity to the evidence. The court found the issues for the defendant and gave judgment accordingly. The Supreme Court of the State disapproved that judgment and in its stead entered one awarding the plaintiff a recovery of smaller taxes than were claimed for the years ending April 30 in 1923-1926 and of the full tax claimed for the year ending April 30 in 1927. 350 Ill. 365; 183 N.E. 241. The defendant then sought and was allowed an appeal to this Court— the ground for the appeal being that the state court overruled the defendant’s claim that the state statute, under which the taxes were levied, when construed and applied as sustaining them (it was so construed and applied by that court), conflicts with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The defendant is a Wisconsin insurance corporation and, conformably to its charter and to licenses from lilinois, has been engaged for several years in conducting in Cook County in the latter State the business of insuring against fire, marine and inland navigation risks and various so-called casualty risks. Its receipts from that business consisted only of premiums received on policies issued.

The taxes in question were levied under § 30 of a statute of March 11, 1869,¹ entitled “An Act to incorporate and to govern fire, marine and inland navigation insurance companies doing business in the State of Illinois.” Several sections of the act relate to the creation and regulation of domestic corporations, and others relate to the licensing, taxing, etc., of foreign corporations. Section 30 provides in respect to foreign corporations doing business in the State that in the month of May, annually, “ the amount of the net receipts ” of their local agencies shall be entered on the local tax lists and be “ subject to the same rate of taxation for all purposes, state, county, town and municipal, that other personal property is subject to at the place where located.”

Throughout the years 1923-1927, and before, it was the uniform practice of officers and boards engaged in listing and assessing personal property for taxation to treat and list 60% of the fair cash value as the “ full value”; and in the years 1923-1926 these officers and boards, pursuant to the direction of a statute of 1919,² treated and listed one-half of such “ full value ” as the “ assessed value.” By these processes 30% of the fair cash value uniformly was made the basis of personal property taxes in 1923-1926.³ The same processes were applied in respect of real property. In 1927, before the assessments of that year were completed, the statute directing that 50% of the listed “ full value ” be taken as the assessed value was repealed,⁴ and therefore was not applied in making assessments in that year. But the practice of taking 60% of the fair cash value as the true value was continued and applied in the assessments of that year as it had been in those of earlier years.

In the years 1923-1926 the defendant made returns of its net receipts from fire, marine and inland navigation insurance. The amounts so returned were accepted by the assessing officers as correct, but were not scaled down to 60% or further reduced to one-half of 60%, as was done in the assessment of other property. On the contrary, taxes were levied on the full amounts reported in the returns.

In 1927 the defendant made a return of its net receipts from fire, marine and inland navigation insurance, the amount reported being $76,291.00. It arrived at this amount by deducting operating expenses from gross receipts, the former being treated in the computation as 54% of the latter. On this basis its gross receipts were $165,850.00.⁵ The amount returned as net receipts was accepted as correct by the board of assessors of the county and 50% thereof was listed by that body as the assessed value. But that assessment, as will appear presently, was not approved by the next superior body, the board of review of the county.

• In November, 1927, the defendant was cited by the board of review to appear before it on December 15 at a hearing on a proposed reassessment of the net receipts in the years covered by the returns of 1923-1926, and also on a review of the assessment by the board of assessors of the net receipts in the year covered by the return of 1927. The defendant appeared in response to the citation, and in view of the importance which has been given to the hearing it will be described at some length.

At the hearing the defendant had full opportunity to support and supplement its returns by a further showing respecting its gross receipts and the deductions rightly to be made in determining the net receipts. But it chose to stand on its returns and made no additional showing. It freely conceded that the returns included receipts from fire, marine and inland navigation insurance but not from casualty insurance. And it also conceded that the deductions made by it in computing the net receipts included some items, such as overhead expenses and reinsurance costs, the deduction of which had been and still was the subject of diverging opinions.

A full report of the hearing before the board was produced in evidence at the trial of this cause and is set forth in the record. The report shows that — apart from a con-, troversy over the construction and constitutional validity of the taxing statute — the matters brought to the board’s attention were (1) defendant’s failure to include and state separately in its returns the receipts from casualty insurance; (2) defendant’s failure to specify with greater particularity the expenses deducted by it in computing the net receipts; (3) a contention that the receipts from casualty insurance should be included in the computation of the taxable net receipts; and (4) a contention that the deductions made for operating expenses were excessive.

One participant in the hearing, who had investigated and studied the matter, made evidential statements to the board tending to show that the defendant’s receipts from fire, marine and inland navigation insurance were about 75% of its total receipts, the remainder coming from casualty insurance, and that the operating-expenses of an insurance business like that of the defendant in Cook County averaged about 30% of the gross receipts. These statements, although informal, were of such a nature that, under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court of the State, the board could consider them and give some weight to them — particularly as the defendant presented no showing to the contrary beyond referring to its returns which were meager and practically silent on the points to which the statements were directed.

Because of a contention which will be noticed later on it should be stated in this connection that in the hearing before the board the defendant neither claimed that losses paid to policy holders should be deducted in determining net receipts nor presented any showing or statement of the amount of such losses.

After the hearing the board made corrected assessments of the net receipts for the years covered by the returns of 1923-1926; but as the Supreme Court of the State held this action of the board was of no effect, save as it brought the original assessments forward and attached them to the 1927 roll without affecting their original validity or force, the corrected assessments do not require further notice.

Coming to the net receipts for the year ending April 30, 1927, the board fixed their amount at $121,550.00, instead of $76,291.00 as stated in the return; and without scaling or debasing the amount so fixed the board listed it as their assessed value.

The record makes it plain that the board in fixing the net receipts for that year at an amount much larger than was stated in the return proceeded on the theory and conviction that the receipts from casualty insurance, which were omitted from the return, should be included in computing the taxable net receipts, and that the deductible operating expenses, which the defendant had regarded as 54% of the gross receipts, were only about 30% of such receipts.

In Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Harding, 327 Ill. 590; 158 N.E. 849,⁶ which preceded the decision in the present case about five years, the Supreme Court of the State in considering and applying § 30 now in question ruled that the reductions, by scaling and debasement, applied in the assessment of other personal property should be applied to net receipts of foreign insurance corporations; and on that ground the court condemned a tax of $7,184.18, where such reductions were not made, and awarded a recovery of $2,155.24, which would have been the tax had the net receipts been reduced like the value of other personal property. In stating the reason for its ruling the court said (pp. 601-602):

“ Section 30 provides that ‘ net receipts shall be subject to the same rate of taxation . . . that other personal property is subject to at the place where located.’ The use of the word ‘ other ’ indicates that the net receipts were to be considered as personal property and treated the same as other personal property. Clearly, this provision means that not only the percentage of the rate but the basis of the valuation shall be the same. Taxing by a uniform rule requires uniformity not only in the rate of taxation but also uniformity in the mode of the assessment upon the taxable valuation. Uniformity in taxing implies equality in the burden of taxation, and this equality of burden cannot exist without uniformity in the mode of the assessment as well as in the rate per cent of taxation. (Green v. L. & I. R.R. Co., 244 U.S. 499; Boyer v. Boyer, 113 id. 889; Cummings v. National Bank, 101 id. 153; Exchange Bank v. Hines, 3 Ohio St. 1.) Section 30 and the law of 1898⁷ should be construed together, and when the net receipts are placed upon the tax list they are to be treated as personal property valuation, and are to be scaled, debased and treated the same as other personal property by the taxing officials.”

In that connection the court approvingly quoted from its decision in People v. Cosmopolitan Fire Ins. Co., 246 Ill. 442, 448; 92 N.E. 922, as follows:

“ The net receipts are personal property and are to be listed by the board of assessors and board of review and taxed the same as other property.”

In the present case that court in dealing with the original assessments made in 1923-1926, after the returns in those years were received, said (350 Ill. 372; 183 N.E. 241):

“ Such returns were received and accepted as correct by the assessor, acted upon by the taxing bodies and the taxes extended thereon. The taxes extended were not legal, for the reason that the amounts returned as net receipts were not scaled and debased as the returns of other personal property were in the extension of the taxes.”

But while the court ruled that the taxes so extended were not legal, it referred to the stipulation whereby judgment was to be rendered in conformity with the evidence and equitable principles, and held that the plaintiff, while not entitled to recover all that was extended, was entitled to a judgment for what would have been due had the net receipts been “ scaled and debased in conformity with the assessments on other personal property” and had the taxes been computed and extended on the resulting assessments.

Respecting the tax on net receipts for the year ending April 30, 1927, that court considered several objections, not material here, which were urged against the action of the board of review and pronounced them not well grounded. It then sustained the assessment as a valid one, held that equity and good conscience required that the tax be paid, and included the full amount in'the recovery awarded the plaintiff. Nothing was said in the opinion about the failure of the board of review to scale the net receipts down to 60% of their value, as was done in assessing other property, nor was there mention of anything which could cure that departure from the general practice or render it of no significance. The matter was plainly ■ presented on the record, and the full tax could not have been sustained without resolving it against the defendant. So the conclusion is unavoidable that it was so resolved, although not given distinct mention.

From the outset the defendant has insisted as part of its defense that the taxing act, if construed and applied as sustaining the taxes in question, denies to it the equal protection of the laws contrary to the prohibition of the Fourteenth Amendment. This appears in the stipulation under which the case was tried, in the opening statement of counsel at the trial, and elsewhere in the record. The Supreme Court, in the opinion, recites that this contention was made, and disposes of it by saying that a like contention was considered and overruled in Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Harding, 327 Ill. 590; 158 N.E. 849; and People v. Franklin National Ins. Co., 343 Ill. 336; 175 N.E. 431.

Of course the question in this Court is whether the act as applied by the state court in this case arbitrarily and prejudicially discriminates against the defendant and in favor of others in circumstances fairly admitting of equal treatment. The particulars in which it is claimed that the act works such a discrimination will be taken up separately.

It is said that the act as it was applied to the net receipts of 1927 subjects the personal property of a foreign fire insurance corporation to a tax based on its full actual value whereas other personal property is taxed on a basis of 60% of its value. The complaint is not that the net receipts were valued excessively, but that the value when determined was not debased like that of other personal property. The tax, as extended on the full actual value fixed by the board of review, was $5,895.19. Had that value been debased to 60%, as was the value of other personal property, the tax would have been $3,537.11, making a difference of $2,358.08. The act deals specially and only with the taxation of net receipts of foreign fire, marine and inland navigation insurance corporations. The assessing officers acted in virtue of it and the state court held their action was valid under it. Thus both applied it, and they applied it as subjecting the net receipts of a foreign fire insurance company, by reason of being such, to a tax burden 66%% greater than that laid on other personal property. No reasonable basis for such a discrimination is suggested and none is perceived. It is essentially the same character of arbitrary and prejudicial discrimination that was condemned as a denial of the equal protection of the laws in Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Harding, 272 U.S. 494.

Whether a state statute is valid or invalid under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment often depends on how the statute is construed and applied. It may be valid when given a particular application and invalid when given another. Here the application which was made of § 30 in respect of the taxation of the net receipts of 1927, i.e., the application made by the assessing officers and sustained by the Supreme Court, brought the section into conflict with the prohibition of that clause. This means that as so applied it is invalid, notwithstanding its validity in some different applications.

By way of excusing the failure to debase it is said that something else was done which was a practical equivalent. But careful consideration of the ásserted excusing action shows that it neither did nor could operate as a practical equivalent or rectify the material omission sought to be excused. Effect must be given to the board’s recorded action in fixing the net receipts at $121,550. This is the amount which should have been debased to 60% to put the net receipts on a plane with other property.

It is said that § 30 works an unreasonable discrimination against the foreign corporations named therein in that it taxes their net receipts without permitting in the computation of such receipts a deduction of paid insurance losses, whereas competing domestic corporations are taxed only on what remains of their receipts on April 1 of each year after insurance losses, as well as operating expenses, are paid. But the defendant is not in a position to press this claim. Neither in its return nor in the hearing before the board of review did it make any showing respecting paid insurance losses or ask that such losses be deducted in arriving at its net receipts. The amount of these receipts — whether one sum or another — was primarily, at least, to be determined by the assessing officers. And as the matter was not presented to them it was not admissible, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, for the' defendant to make it a ground for asking the court to reject or revise their finding respecting the amount of the receipts.

It is said that § 30 arbitrarily discriminates against foreign fire, marine and inland navigation insurance corporations and in favor of competing domestic corporations, in that it taxes the net receipts of the former, while the latter are not subjected to such a tax or to any equivalent tax. It appears to be conceded that no tax is laid directly on the net receipts of the domestic corporations; but it is denied that those corporations are not subjected to an equivalent tax.

For a long period the Supreme Court of the State ruled that the tax imposed by § 30 was a property tax; later on it ruled that the tax was an occupation or privilege tax; and still later it returned to its first ruling. In Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Harding, 272 U.S. 494, this court in sustaining a claim that the section, when applied according to the second ruling, was in conflict with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment said (p. 516) :

“ Under the previous decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois, when the net receipts were treated as personal property and the assessment thereon as a personal property tax subjected to the same reductions for equalization and debasement, it might well have been said that there was no substantial inequality as between domestic corporations and foreign corporations, in that the net receipts were personal property acquired during the year and removed by foreign companies out of the State, and could be required justly to yield a tax fairly equivalent to that which the domestic companies would have to pay on all their personal property, including their net receipts or what they were invested in.”

Counsel differ as to whether that statement was necessary to the decision of the case in hand. Be this as it may, the statement recognizes that substantial equality and fair equivalence are important factors in determining the presence or absence of arbitrary discrimination in such situations; and in this respect the statement is in accord with repeated decisions of this Court. Mathematical equivalence is neither, required nor attainable; nor is identity in mere modes of taxation of importance where there is substantial equality in the resulting burdens.

By reason of the presumption of validity which attends legislative and official action one who alleges unreasonable discrimination must carry the burden of showing it. This has not been done as respects the claim now being considered. The defendant recognizes that the domestic corporations are subjected to some taxes not laid on the foreign corporations, a capital stock tax apparently being one. But the full situation is not shown; nor is it reflected in the opinion of the Supreme Court or the cases there cited. For aught that appears it may be that taxes not applied to the foreign corporations are laid on the domestic corporations which are the substantial equivalent of the net receipts tax. For these reasons this claim of discrimination must fail.

It is said that § 30 requires foreign fire insurance corporations to pay the tax not alone on their net receipts from fire, marine and inland navigation insurance but also on their net receipts from casualty insurance, whereas foreign casualty insurance corporations severally conducting a casualty insurance business in direct competition with the foreign fire insurance corporations are not required to pay a tax on their net receipts qr any equivalent tax. The factual premises of this claim are stipulated. The Supreme Court of the State has construed § 30 as taxing the foreign fire insurance companies on their net receipts from casualty insurance,⁸ and has held that foreign casualty insurance companies conducting a casualty insurance business are not taxable on their net receits under § 30 or any other statute.⁹ The stipulation shows that all' of these foreign corporations are lawfully entitled by reason of licenses, etc., to conduct their respective businesses within the State; that the casualty corporations are conducting the “ same character ” of casualty insurance business as the fire insurance corporations; that these businesses are competitive; and that the casualty corporations are taxed on such real and tangible personal property as they hold within the State, while the fire insurance companies are taxed not only on their real and tangible personal property but also on their net receipts from casualty insurance.

This statement shows that § 30, as the state court construes and applies it, works a very real and prejudicial discrimination against the fire insurance companies and in favor of the casualty companies in respect of competitive casualty businesses of the same character, conducted in the same way and in the same territory. The companies are all foreign corporations, and all are for present purposes equally within the jurisdiction of the State and subject to her power to tax. There is no basis or reason for making a distinction between them that has any pertinence to the imposition of a property tax such as is in question. The net receipts which are taxed are not different from those which are not taxed; and both come from the same source. Such a discrimination in respect of the taxation of real or tangible personal property obviously would be essentially arbitrary. In principle it is not different with the net receipts. They are property and the tax which § 30 imposes is, as the state court holds, a property tax. It follows that the section, when construed and applied in the way just described, is in conflict with the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Full support for this conclusion is found in prior decisions.¹⁰

When the views expressed in this opinion are applied to the judgment under review the result, shortly stated, is as follows: The taxes of 1923-1926, as reduced by the Supreme Court, were only on net receipts from fire, marine and inland navigation insurance, and were computed on amounts obtained by proper scaling and debasement. None of the constitutional objections urged against the taxes of those years is well taken. Therefore as to those taxes the judgment must be affirmed. The tax of 1927 was partly on net receipts from casualty insurance and was also laid on the full amount of the net receipts of that year without first debasing them to 60% as was done with other property. In both of these particulars there was a denial of the equal protection of the laws. Therefore as to that tax the judgment must be reversed. And inbidentally the cause must be remanded to the Supreme Court of the State for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Affirmed in part.

Reversed in part.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

1 Ill. Laws 1869, 209, 228; Ill. Laws 1874, 179; Cahill's Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 73, § 159.

2 Act June 30, 1919; Ill. Laws 1919, p. 727.

3 Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Harding, 327 Ill. 590, 594-595.

4 Act July 7, 1927; Ill. Laws of 1927, p. 745; Cahill's Ill. Rev. Stat. 1933, c. 120, §§ 328, 329.

5 In one of the briefs this amount is given as $165,670.00.

6 This was the second decision of that court in the case. An earlier decision reported in 317 Ill. 366; 148 N.E. 23 had been reversed in 272 U.S. 494 and the case had been remanded for further proceedings.

7 Sections 17 and 18 of the Act of February 25, 1898, Ill. Laws 1898, p. 32, directed assessing officers to take one-third of the listed “ full value ” as the “ assessed value.” These sections were amended June 30, 1919, Ill. Laws 1919, p. 727, by changing “ one-third ” to " one-half.”

8 People v. Concordia Fire Ins. Co., 350 Ill. 365; 183 N.E. 241.

9 Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Board of Review, 264 Ill. 11; 105 N.E. 704.

10 Quaker City Cab Co. v. Pennsylvania, 277 U.S. 389; Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. Coleman, 277 U.S. 32; Cumberland Coal Co. v. Board of Revision, 284 U.S. 23; Iowa-Des Moines National Bank v. Bennett, 284 U.S. 239, Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412; Kentucky Finance Corp. v. Paramount Auto Exchange, 262 U.S. 544; Power Manufacturing Co. v. Saunders, 274 U.S. 490.