DocketNumber: Appeal, 40
Citation Numbers: 23 A.2d 496, 343 Pa. 394, 1942 Pa. LEXIS 287
Judges: Schaffer, Maxey, Drew, Linn, Stern, Patterson, Parker
Filed Date: 11/24/1941
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/13/2024
The question presented on this appeal by the School District of the City of Pittsburgh is whether it is liable for the four mill State tax on bonds which it has issued, containing a tax free covenant, held by (1) savings institutions having no capital stock and (2) by resident corporate trustees under trusts for non-resident beneficiaries. The court below held the School District liable for the tax.
The statute imposing the tax is the Act of June 17, 1913, P. L. 507, as amended. Section 17,
It is argued in behalf of the School District that it does not come within the designation, "bodies corporate", appearing in the act, who are required to pay the tax, even though the bonds are held by savings institutions, in instances where the bonds are issued with tax free covenants. We are unable to accept the argument, because in our opinion school districts are "bodies corporate" and have been so recognized by express legislative provisions.
Article I, section 101, of the School Code (Act of May 18, 1911, P. L. 309, as amended, 24 P. S. § 21 et seq.) makes each city a separate school district. Section 123, 24 P. S. § 34, confers upon each district the right to sue and be sued "in its corporate name." Section 124, 24 P. S. § 35, gives the power to the school directors to adopt a "corporate seal." And Section 119, 24 P. S. § 30, is in this convincing language: "The several school districts in this Commonwealth, established by this act, shall be and hereby are vested, as bodies corporate* with all necessary powers to enable them to carry out the provisions of this act." The lawmaking body having in explicit terms declared them to be "bodies corporate", we must and do so recognize them. Furthermore, as long ago as 1862, in Wharton v. SchoolDirectors of Cass Township,
As to the bonds held by the resident trustee in trust for non-resident beneficiaries, it is sufficient to say that under all our decisions property held in trust is assessable to the trustee where the trust is administered. The payment of taxes on trust property is an obligation of the trustee: Guthrie v.Pittsburgh, Cincinnati St. Louis Ry.,
It is suggested in appellant's brief that if we reach the conclusion which we have, that the taxes are payable by the School District, the act warranting the levy must be considered discriminatory and in violation of the constitutional provision against unreasonable classification, citing Com. v. Quaker CityCab Co.,
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Commonwealth v. Hudson Coal Co. , 287 Pa. 64 ( 1926 )
Commonwealth v. Quaker City Cab Co. , 287 Pa. 161 ( 1926 )
School District v. Fuess , 1881 Pa. LEXIS 200 ( 1881 )
Guthrie v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Ry. , 158 Pa. 433 ( 1893 )
Cumberland County v. Lemoyne Trust Co. , 318 Pa. 85 ( 1935 )
Mulligan v. School District , 241 Pa. 204 ( 1913 )
Wharton v. School Directors of Cass Township , 1862 Pa. LEXIS 94 ( 1862 )
Commonwealth v. Beamish , 1876 Pa. LEXIS 164 ( 1876 )
Commonwealth v. Delaware Div. Canal Co. , 123 Pa. 594 ( 1889 )
Commonwealth v. Girard Life Insurance , 305 Pa. 558 ( 1931 )