Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL PRIVILEGE TAX MUTUAL AID ASSOCIATION v. HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP (07/02/70)

decided: July 2, 1970.

EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL PRIVILEGE TAX MUTUAL AID ASSOCIATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP



Appeal from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, June T., 1967, No. 3, in case of Employees Occupational Privilege Tax Mutual Aid Association v. Township of Hampden and Electronic and Unit Record Data Center, Inc.

COUNSEL

Harry L. Bricker, Jr., for appellant.

Tom H. Bietsch, for appellees.

Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice O'Brien.

Author: O'brien

[ 439 Pa. Page 147]

On March 1, 1966, the Township of Hampden enacted Ordinance No. 76, known as "The Occupational Privilege Tax Ordinance," for the calendar year 1966. On November 29, 1966, an identical ordinance was enacted for the calendar year 1967. By means of these ordinances, the township imposed a $10 tax on any person, eighteen years of age or over, engaged in any occupation within the limits of Hampden Township.

The appellants, members of an unincorporated association composed of civilian employees of the United States Naval Supply Depot, situated on land partially in the Borough of Mechanicsburg and partially in the Township of Hampden, which land had been ceded to the United States, filed a complaint in equity requesting that the Township and its tax-collecting agency be enjoined from collecting the occupational privilege tax from all persons employed within the Depot.

An adjudication was filed on June 2, 1969, and the decree nisi dismissed the complaint. After exceptions were filed and the matter was argued before the court en banc, the exceptions were dismissed and the decree nisi was entered as a final decree.

This appeal raises two issues, to wit: whether the chancellor erred in finding that the state had specifically reserved the power of enacting an occupational privilege tax by the ceding statute, Act of May 21, 1943, P. L. 567, ยง 4, 74 P.S. 120.24, and whether the chancellor

[ 439 Pa. Page 148]

    erred in holding that the appellants were not entitled to relief by reason of laches. Since we find that the chancellor's interpretation of the statute was correct, we need not concern ourselves with the latter issue.

The ceding statute reads as follows: "The jurisdiction so ceded to the United States shall be upon the further condition that the Commonwealth reserves to itself and its political subdivisions whatever power of taxation it may constitutionally reserve, to levy and collect all taxes now or hereafter imposed by the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions upon property, persons and franchises within the boundaries so ceded."

The learned chancellor held as a portion of Finding of Fact No. 7, the following: "The effect of both ordinances was to levy a tax upon all persons pursuing any trade, profession or business or undertaking of any type ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.