Commonwealth v. Globe Furnishing Co., 188 A. 170 (1936). · Go Syfert
Commonwealth v. Globe Furnishing Co., 188 A. 170 (1936). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Cited for
At page 172 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Puntureri v. Pittsburgh Sch. Dist., 60 A.2d 42 (Pa. 1948).published
    The former, which results from the necessity of policing a business requiring public supervision, is a flat charge for the privilege of dealing in intoxicating liquors; the mercantile license tax, on the other hand, which is imposed solely…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Commonwealth
v.
Globe Furnishing Company, Appellant
Oct 7, 1936.
Published opinion
188 A. 170
1936 Pa. LEXIS 492
Samuel Kaufman , with him Louis J. Bloch, S. Leo Ruslander and Louis Caplan , for appellant. Francis P. Anton, Charles J. Margiotti , Attorney General, and E. Russell Shockley , Deputy Attorney General, for appellee, were not heard.
Cueiam, Kephart, Schaffer, Maxey, Drew, Linn, Stern, Barnes.
Pee Cueiam,

Appellant contends that if the cash received from bailment leases is included within the gross volume of its business for purposes of assessing the mercantile license tax, it will amount to double taxation because the value of the leased goods is also included within its property valuation for capital stock tax purposes. But it is established that double taxation exists only where the subject of both taxes is the same. The capital stock tax is a property tax; the mercantile license tax is a tax on the privilege of doing business in a certain manner. This distinction has been previously noted in Commonwealth v. Bailey, Banks & Biddle Co., 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 210, where a similar contention was ruled upon adversely to appellant. See also Commonwealth v. Harrisburg L. & P. Co., 284 Pa. 175, 179. Appellant’s other contentions are all fully answered in the opinion of the court below.

Judgment affirmed.