ARK.] FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION. 343 taxes assessed against them as the agent of each of its shareholders, owners or owner under the provisions of this act, and may pay the same out of their individual profit account or charge the same to their expense account, or to the accounts of such shareholders, owners or owner in proportion to their ownership.' The Supreme Court of Washington held in this case that these two sections are to be read together, and that, so read, their provisions are not inconsistent with those of the Federal statute. That the two sections of the State law should be read together is obviously proper, and, at any rate, we are bound by the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State in the mere matter of the construction of that These decisions are precisely in point, for they construe statutes which are substantially like our own, and their persuasive force cannot be escaped. The reasoning upon which they are based goes to sustain the contention that our statutes are intended to tax the shares of stock in banks, and not to tax the capital of the bank itself, and that this taxation and the method in which it is enforced neither offend against the Federal statutes nor transcend the taxing powers of the State. The Federal statutes do not restrict the State's form or method of levying and collecting the tax. If the tax is levied on the shares of stock, the cases already cited establish the principle that the tax may be collected by assessment in solido against the bank as the agent of its shareholders. Mr. Justice Miller, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in National Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353, said : "It is strongly urged that it is to be deemed a tax on the capital of the bank, because the law requires the officers of the bank to pay this tax on the shares of its stockholders. Whether the State has the right to do fhis we will presently consider, but the fact that it has attempted to do it does not prove that the tax is anything else than a tax on these shares." It is true the Supreme Court of the United States, in Owens-boro National Bank v. Owensboro, supra, said that a tax on a franchise and property of a national bank was not equivalent to a tax on the shares of stock therein, or vice versa; for it said that that rule would render illegal a State tax on shares of stock.
344 FIRST NATIONAL BANK 71. BOARD OF EOUALIZATION. [92 But that was said in a case which involved the validity of a tax which had been held to be a tax on the franchise of a national bank. No intimation is found in that opinion of an intention to overrule former opinions in which it was held that an assessment in solido against the bank, paid by the bank and collected from its shareholders, is valid. We are therefore of the opinion that the revenue statutes of this State now under consideration provide for the taxation of shares of stock, and not the capital stock of the bank itself ; and that the method of assessment prescribed by this statute, in requiring the bank to file a schedule setting forth the things enumerated, is meredy intended as a method of arriving at the valuation of the shares of stock. The statute contemplates the assessment of the tax in solido against the bank as trustee for, or agent of, its stockholders, the same to be paid by the bank and collected from its stockholders. The statute meets every requirement of the Federal statute. It applies to all banking concerns alike, either State or National, without discrimination, and provides that the shares of stock "he taxed in the city or town where the bank is located." Under any other construction of the statute, shares of stock in national banks would escape taxation altogether. This construction does no violence, as contended, to the language of the statute. The third subdivision of the section hereinbefore quoted does not, as claimed, exempt "the value of moneys, credits or other personal property converted into bonds or other securities of the United States, or of this State," during the preceding y ear. For it expressly requires banks to list such items. Nor does the fact that the statute requires the listing of time deposits show that this construction was not intended. Such items constitute the working capital of the bank, and may well be considered in arriving at a correct estimate of the value of the assets of the bank or of its shares of stock. It is contended that fhe assessment in this case discriminated against the shares of stock in this bank ; and in support of this contention it is shown that the assessor and board of equalization had failed to assess the shares of stock of three State banks in the same county. This appears from an agreed statement of facts in the record. But we do not understand from this that
ARK.] 345 the shares of stock escaped taxation altogether. What we understand the stipulation to mean is that the shares of stock in the State banks named were not separately assessed against the individual shareholders. There is no showing here that there was any discrimination against this bank in failing to assess the shares of stock therein in the same manner in which shares of stock in other like institutions were assessed. We are of the opinion that the judgment of the circuit court is correct, and the same is affirmed. ■=1=M■IM■li
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.