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.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. N.I. (07/22/77)

decided: July 22, 1977.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
N.I., INC. (FORMERLY NORTHERN INDUSTRIES, INC.), APPELLANT



Appeals from the Orders of the Board of Finance and Revenue in case of In the Matter of N.I., Inc. (Formerly Northern Industries, Inc.) Docket Nos. C-261, C-262 and C-263.

COUNSEL

Melvin Schwartz, with him John P. Klee and Baskin, Boreman, Wilner, Sachs, Gondelman & Craig, for appellant.

R. Scott Shearer, Deputy Attorney General, with him Eugene J. Anastasio, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by President Judge Bowman.

Author: Bowman

[ 31 Pa. Commw. Page 236]

This is an appeal by N.I., Inc. (appellant) from three orders of the Board of Finance and Revenue (Board) which denied appellant's petitions for refund with respect to its 1971 and 1972 Capital Stock Tax (CST) and its 1971 Corporate Net Income Tax (CNIT).

The facts have been stipulated and disclose appellant to be a domestic corporation which has, since 1968, elected to be treated as a Subchapter S corporation under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), 26 U.S.C.A. ยง 1371 et seq. Consequently, appellant itself is not subject to Federal income tax but rather has its income taxed to its individual shareholders. Appellant timely filed its 1971 and 1972 CST returns and its 1971 CNIT return and these were settled by the Commonwealth as filed. Thereafter, appellant filed petitions for refund for all of the taxes involved on the ground that it, as a Subchapter S corporation under the IRC, is

[ 31 Pa. Commw. Page 237]

    not subject to either CST or CNIT. Appellant bases this novel argument on the premise that these taxes imposed by Pennsylvania are somehow incompatible with the policy and the provisions expressed in the IRC with respect to Subchapter S corporations and that, under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2, the Federal statute must prevail. Since we disagree with this premise, we will affirm the Board.

Appellant places primary reliance on a quotation from a U.S. Senate Committee Report as indicating the congressional intent underlying the enactment of the Subchapter S provisions:

Your committee believes that the enactment of a provision of this type is desirable because it permits businesses to select the form of business organization desired, without the necessity of taking into account major differences in tax consequence. . . . Also, permitting shareholders to report their proportionate share of the corporate income, in lieu of a corporate tax, will be substantial aid to small business. (Emphasis added.)

S. Rep. No. 1983, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in [1958] U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News, 4876.

While reports of Congressional Committees have been recognized as an aid in searching for the intent of Congress if Federal legislation is doubtful in meaning, the use of such a tool in this case is without warrant as there is absolutely nothing in either the IRC or the committee report to indicate that the "tax consequence" referred to is anything ...


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.