tax upon privilege in Pennsylvania

1965In support of this argument, they rely on that section of the enabling act which withholds from local authorities the power to tax the privilege of employing tangible property subject to state taxation. [7] Since their facilities are subject to a state tax, [8] appellants argue that the tax here imposed upon the privilege of engaging in the amusement of bowling is in reality a tax upon the privilege of employing that very *486 same property and, therefore, is prohibited by the enabling act. [9] This Court considered and rejected an identical argument in the recent case of Plymouth Lanes, Inc.

1965In support of this argument, they rely on that section of the enabling act which withholds from local authorities the power to tax the privilege of employing tangible property subject to state taxation. 7 Since their facilities are subject to a state tax, 8 appellants argue that the tax here imposed upon the privilege of engaging in the amusement of bowling is in reality a tax upon the privilege of employing that very same property and, therefore, is prohibited by the enabling act. 9 This Court considered and rejected an identical argument in the recent case of Plymouth Lanes, Inc. v. Plymouth

1935In the recent case of Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi, ex rel., 277 U. S. 218 , the court went so far as to deny the right of a State to impose a tax upon a privilege, exercised by one of its citizens, of selling gasoline to the Federal Government.

1935And, without congressional consent, no federal agency or instrumentality can be taxed by state authority. ‘With regard to taxation, no matter how reasonable, or how universal and undiscriminating, the State’s inability to interfere has been regarded as established since McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 .’ ” (Italics ours.) In the recent case of Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi, ex rel., 277 U. S. 218 , the court went so far as to deny to the State of Mississippi the right to impose a tax upon the privilege of one of its citizens Of selling gasoline to the Federal Government.

2003Every one who has paid a use or sales tax ... in any state, is to that extent to be exempt from the payment of another tax in Washington.” Henneford, 300 U.S. at 584 , 57 S.Ct. 524 .

2003Every one who has paid a use or sales tax ... in any state, is to that extent to be exempt from the payment of another tax in Washington.” Henneford, 300 U.S. at 584 , 57 S.Ct. 524 .

1998In discussing Pickering Estate, 410 Pa. 638 , 190 A.2d 132 (1963), this Court noted that the Pennsylvania inheritance tax is a tax on the right of succession to or the privilege of receiving the property of a decedent at death, in contrast with federal estate tax, which is a tax upon the privilege of the transmission of a decedent’s property.

1998In discussing Pickering Estate, 410 Pa. 638 , 190 A.2d 132 (1963), this Court noted that the Pennsylvania inheritance tax is a tax on the right of succession to or the privilege of receiving the property of a decedent at death, in contrast with federal estate tax, which is a tax upon the privilege of the transmission of a decedent’s property.

1998Deaver, 660 A.2d at 691 n.6.

1996Section 301 of Resolution 276 "imposes and levies upon all persons who lease tax exempt realty within the School District during all or any part of the taxable period a tax upon the privilege thereof.” Id.

1992The township’s ordinance does not impermissibly burden interstate commerce by taxing a privilege solely exercised within its borders.” Wagman, 112 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 367, 535 A.2d at 706 .

1981In Philadelphia Appeal, 383 Pa. 428 , 119 A.2d 205 (1956), the City of Philadelphia enacted an ordinance imposing a tax upon the privilege of transferring real property within the limits of the City.

1981In Philadelphia Appeal, 383 Pa. 428 , 119 A.2d 205 (1956), the City of Philadelphia enacted an ordinance imposing a tax upon the privilege of transferring real property within the limits of the City.

1958He cites Commonwealth v. Bayuk Cigars, 359 Pa. 202, 208 , 58 A. 2d 445 (1948) as authority for this proposition.

1958He cites Commonwealth v. Bayuk Cigars, 359 Pa. 202, 208 , 58 A. 2d 445 (1948) as authority for this proposition.

1957In Commonwealth v. Quaker Oats Company, supra (appeal dismissed 324 U.S. 827 ), we said at p. 260: ". . . the tax is imposed upon the privilege of doing business here, measured by capital stock. . . ." In Commonwealth v. Monessen Amusement Company, Inc., supra, the court below had held that the value of shares in a domestic corporation owned by a foreign corporation must be deducted in fixing the valuation of the foreign corporation for franchise tax purposes.

1941In the case of Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. et al. v. Grosjean et al., 301 U. S. 412 , the statute of Louisiana was sustained.

1940As stated in Commonwealth v. Fall Brook Coal Co., 156 Pa. 488 (1893), “. . . the legislature has power to impose double taxation, provided it is done in such manner as to secure the uniformity which the constitution requires.” Moreover, even though the gross premiums tax has been declared to be the equivalent of a capital stock tax (which has been broadly considered in the nature of a property tax) within the former exemption provisions, if viewed as a tax upon the privilege of doing business within the State, it is arguable that no double taxation is involved by the imposition of a property t

1935And, without congressional consent, no federal agency or instrumentality can be taxed by state authority. ‘With regard to taxation, no matter how reasonable, or how universal and undiscriminating, the State’s inability to interfere has been regarded as established since McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 .’ ” (Italics ours.) In the recent case of Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi, ex rel., 277 U. S. 218 , the court went so far as to deny to the State of Mississippi the right to impose a tax upon the privilege of one of its citizens Of selling gasoline to the Federal Government.

1935In Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Crosland, supra, it was held to be immaterial whether the State tax was primarily payable by the United States or its instrumentalities, or the other party to the transaction, where the tax applied to mortgages given to the Federal land bank, an instrumentality of the United States.