Appeal, No. 32, May T., 1957, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, No. 46 Commonwealth Docket, 1956, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Beckwith Machinery Company. Judgment affirmed; reargument refused August 1, 1957.
Carl F. Chronister, with him Joseph C. Robinson and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, for appellant.
George W. Keitel, Deputy Attorney General, with him Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before Jones, C.j., Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno, Arnold and Jones, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE MUSMANNO
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County sustaining an increase in the franchise tax liability of the Beckwith Machinery Company which resulted from a resettlement of the Company's tax account made under the provisions of Section 1105 of The Fiscal Code of 1929, P.L. 343, as amended, 72 PS § 1105.
The Beckwith Machinery Company is a Delaware corporation, doing business in Pennsylvania. As such, it filed its franchise tax report for the year 1952, including a sworn appraisal of the value of its capital stock by its officers in the amount of $1,700,000. After a resettlement conference, the taxing officers fixed the value of the company's capital stock at $1,800,000 for 1952. This valuation was accepted by the Company, it being understood that the Company would forego its right to file a petition for resettlement under Section 1102 of the Fiscal Code contesting the $1,800,000 valuation. Accordingly, on September 18, 1953, settlement of the company's franchise tax was made on the $1,800,000 valuation, with a resultant tax liability of $8,722.39.
On September 15, 1955, however, the Secretary of Revenue, with the approval of the Auditor General resettled the tax under Section 1105, based on a valuation of company's capital stock at $2,300,000 and assessed taxes in the amount of $11,145.27.
The defendant company petitioned for review by the Board of Finance and Revenue which was refused. It then took an appeal to the Dauphin County Common Pleas Court, where the case was tried without a jury, most of the facts having been agreed upon and set forth in a stipulation. The lower court entered judgment for the Commonwealth. An appeal to this Court followed.
The Company first argues that Section 1105 of the Fiscal Code, permitting the resettlement of tax accounts, constitutes an unlawful delegation of power by the legislature to the taxing departments. We have, however, already answered this argument in Commonwealth v. Progress Manufacturing Company, 389 Pa. 600, in an opinion handed down this date. For the reasons set forth in our opinion in that case, which we incorporate herein, we conclude that section 1105 is constitutional.
Defendant company further contends that even if section 1105 can be held constitutionally to give to the taxing officers of the Commonwealth the power to resettle its tax account, this still would amount to an unconstitutional denial of due process in the instant case because: "The use of plenary and unlimited power by the taxing officers in the resettlement of appellant's franchise tax was so unreasonable and oppressive as not to come within the constitutional requirement of due process of law." This argument is predicated on the false premise that ...