Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Syllabus.

delivery to respondent of an option of no presen included the compensation obtainable by the the option given for that purpose. It of cour follow that in other circumstances not here option itself, rather than the proceeds of its exe not be found to be the only intended compensat

The Tax Court thus found that the option w respondent as compensation for services, and that the compensation referred to was the exce of the shares of stock over the option price wh option was exercised. From these facts it conc the compensation was taxable as such by the of the applicable Revenue Acts and regulations no basis for disturbing its findings, and we concl rectly applied the law to the facts found. Its affirmed, and the judgment of the Court of App reversing it, is

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS is of the opinion that ment should be affirmed for the reasons stat Circuit Court of Appeals, 142 F.2d 818.

CHARLESTON FEDERAL SAVINGS & LO CIATION ET AL. v. ALDERSON, STA COMMISSIONER.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

VIRGINIA.

No. 400. Argued February 7, 1945. Decided Februar

1. The validity of a state statute under the Federal Cons not appear to have been drawn in question in this suit courts challenging tax assessments, and an appeal und of the Judicial Code as amended is unauthorized; but un certiorari is granted, since appellants properly raised of the validity of the assessments under the equal prot of the Federal Constitution. Pp. 184, 187.

1 equal with d that they 1 their petials of West assessments

n violation

inder § 237 ence in the repugnant Loeber v. Purdy, 185 192, 193; 3; Wall v. ; Citizens ornton v. American

dson, 323 an attack

ants here
's federal
.n appeal
lton, 252

; Indian ilization, n'rs, 290 Comm'n, Memphis al Credit ams, 277

S. 593.

e court of :estion, as ion of the urisdiction

1 when the

Opinion of the Court

teenth Amendment, by their mode ation, of property of the same cla taxpayers.

Appellants are three Federal S ciations, organized under federal and Loan Association, organized filed petitions with the county c West Virginia, seeking a review assessment of their property f assessor. They alleged that t at a proportionately higher the property of other taxpay was unequal and discrimins state constitution and the I federal Constitution.

The county court, sittin the assessments after a l Court for Kanawha Co of the county court, a The Supreme Court of est court of the state, 2d 513, holding that. a clear showing of the their complaint.

The case comes he Supreme Court of to have been take as amended, 28 1 appeal from the the highest cour could be had, of a statute of nant to the favor of its v ments, filed

draw in que.

V.

276 407;

ield v.

ear from

at the fedthat court. objection was it nowhere inlied, the statute Constitution.1

Appeals, in allowing the .. opinion to the effect that under the Constitution was nge that this indicates that hate of the state court, made the federal question in issue

to sustain our jurisdiction, Capital City Dairy v. Ohio, 183

U. S. 212, 222-4; Cincinnati 2: Consolidated Turnpike v. 8. 396, 599; Whitney v. California, Y. Himan, 300 U. S. 14, 22, a cerresting justice of the state appellate

may serve to interpret indefinite wer, relied upon to show that the 2. Scharnweber, 125 U. S. 54, 59, $270: Gulf & Ship Island R. Co. v.

arabies v. New York, 187 U. S. 155, $292, 194; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. New York Central R. Co., 296 U. S. 18 and cases cited; Lisenba v. The memorandum of the President - not sufficient of itself to establish that

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

If the metter and wide provides: “A y shall be assessed annually is of the first day of

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Opinion of the Court.

324 U.S.

question of the validity of the statute was raised when such question appears to have been actually considered and decided by that court. Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 234 U. S. 123, 134; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Perry, 259 U. S. 548, 551; Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 276 U. S. 260, 267; Home Ins. Co. v. Dick, 281 U. S. 397, 407; Nickey v. Mississippi, 292 U. S. 393, 394; Whitfield v. Ohio, 297 U. S. 431, 435-6. But it does not appear from the opinion of the Supreme Court of Appeals that the federal question was presented to or considered by that court. While the opinion intimates that appellants' objection was made to the administration of the statute, it nowhere indicates that they contended that, as applied, the statute was invalid as repugnant to the federal Constitution.1

1 The President of the Supreme Court of Appeals, in allowing the appeal to this Court, wrote a memorandum opinion to the effect that the question of the validity of the statute under the Constitution was raised and decided there. Appellants urge that this indicates that the appeal is proper. While a certificate of the state court, made part of the record, to the effect that the federal question in issue was decided there is generally sufficient to sustain our jurisdiction, when it is consistent with the record, Capital City Dairy v. Ohio, 183 U. S. 238, 244; Marvin v. Trout, 199 U. S. 212, 222-4; Cincinnati Packet Co. v. Bay, 200 U. S. 179, 182; Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk & O. V. R. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 599; Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 360-2; Honeyman v. Hanan, 300 U. S. 14, 22, a certificate to the same effect by the presiding justice of the state appellate court does not suffice, although it may serve to interpret indefinite or ambiguous evidence in the record, relied upon to show that the federal question was raised. Felix v. Scharnweber, 125 U. S. 54, 59, 60; Henkel v. Cincinnati, 177 U. S. 170; Gulf & Ship Island R. Co. v. Hewes, 183 U. S. 66; Home for Incurables v. New York, 187 U. S. 155, 158; Fullerton v. Texas, 196 U. S. 192, 194; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Duvall, 225 U. S. 477, 481; Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 296 U. S. 535; Purcell v. New York Central R. Co., 296 U.S. 545; Honeyman v. Hanan, supra, 18, and cases cited; Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219. The memorandum of the President of the West Virginia court was not sufficient of itself to establish that

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »