Macallen Co v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 7 district · 114 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 201 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The words of the act and the opinion of the state court as to the nature of the tax are to be given consideration and weight; but they are not conclusive. As it many times has been decided, neither state courts nor legislatures, by giving the tax a particular name, or by using some form of words, can take away our duty to consider its nature and effect. Choctaw O. and G. R. Co. v. Harrison, 235 U. S. 292, 298 ; 59 L. Ed. 234, 237 ; 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 27; Galveston H. and S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 227 ; 52 L. Ed. 1031, 1037 ; 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638. And this court must determine for itself by independent inquiry whether the tax here is what, in form and bj' the decision of the state court, it is declared to be, namely, an excise tax on the privilege of doing business, or, under the guise of that designation, is in subsiance and realitj'" a tax on the income derived from tax-exempt securities. If, by varying the form — that is to say, if, by using one name for a tax instead of another, or imposing a tax in terms upon one subject when another is in reality aimed at — the substance and effect of the imposition may be changed, constitutional limitations upon powers of taxation would come to naught. The rule is otherwise * *”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures v. Thayer-Martin · Resolution Trust Corp. v. Lanzaro

2. ““ If the avowed purpose or self-evident operation of a statute is to follow the bonds of the United States and to make up for its inability to reach them directly by-indirectly achieving the same result, the statute must fail even if but for its purpose or special operation it would be perfectly good. Under the laws of Wisconsin the income from the United States bonds may not be the only item exempted from the income tax on corporations, but it certainly is the most conspicuous instance of exemption at the present time. A result intelligently foreseen and offering the most obvious motive for an act that will bring it about, fairly may be taken to have been a purpose of the act. On that assumption the immunity of the national bonds is too important to allow any narrowing beyond what the Acts of Congress permit. We think it would be going too far to say that they allow an intentional interference that is only prevented from being direct by the artificial distinction between a corporation and its members. A tax very well may be upheld as against any casual effect it may have upon the bonds of the United States when passed with a different intent and not- aimed at them, but it becomes a more serious attack upon their immunity when 'they are its obvious aim. In such a case the Court must consider the public' welfare -rather than the artifices contrived for private convenience and must look-at the facts.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pacific Co. v. Johnson

3. ““The fact that a tax ostensibly laid upon a taxable subject is to be measured by the value of a nontaxable subject at once suggests the probability that it was the latter rather than the former that the lawmaker sought to reach. If inquiry discloses persuasive grounds for the conclusion that such is the real purpose and effect of the legislation, the tax cannot be upheld without subverting the well-established rule that ‘... what cannot be done directly because of constitutional restriction cannot be accomplished indirectly by legislation which accomplishes the same result ... constitutional provisions, whether operating by way of grant or limitation, are to be enforced according to their letter and spirit, and cannot be evaded by any legislation which, though not in terms trespassing on the letter, yet in substance and effect destroy the grant or limitation.’ Fairbank v. United States, 181 U.S. 283, 294, 300 , 21 S.Ct. 648, 652, 655 , 45 L.Ed. 862 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Federal Products Corp. v. Norberg