excise privilege in Alabama

1967Southern Natural Gas Corporation v. State of Alabama, 301 U.S. 148 , 57 S.Ct. 696 , 81 L.Ed. 970 .

1967Southern Natural Gas Corporation v. State of Alabama, 301 U.S. 148 , 57 S.Ct. 696 , 81 L.Ed. 970 .

2000Drummond Co. v. Boswell, 346 So.2d 955 (Ala.1977) (local act levying a severance tax on coal mined in Cullman County does not violate § 105 despite the existence of a general law stating that “[no county] ... shall levy a tax upon the excise or privilege of severing coal in Alabama”); Amoco Prod.

2000Co. v. White, 453 So.2d 358 (Ala.1984) (local act levying a privilege tax on persons producing or severing oil or gas in Baldwin County does not violate § 105 despite a provision in a general act stating that “[a] county ... shall not establish, levy, impose or collect as a condition of doing business or otherwise, any tax ... with respect to the production ... of any oil or gas produced in the State of Alabama and on which severance taxes have been paid to the State of Alabama”).

1987City of Anniston v. State , 265 Ala. 303 , 91 So.2d 211 (1956); Town of Hackleburg v. Northwest Gas Dist. , 277 Ala. 355 , 170 So.2d 792 (1964); Tillman v. City of Homewood , 374 So.2d 271 (Ala. 1979).

1987City of Anniston v. State , 265 Ala. 303 , 91 So.2d 211 (1956); Town of Hackleburg v. Northwest Gas Dist. , 277 Ala. 355 , 170 So.2d 792 (1964); Tillman v. City of Homewood , 374 So.2d 271 (Ala. 1979).

1987City of Anniston v. State , 265 Ala. 303 , 91 So.2d 211 (1956); Town of Hackleburg v. Northwest Gas Dist. , 277 Ala. 355 , 170 So.2d 792 (1964); Tillman v. City of Homewood , 374 So.2d 271 (Ala. 1979).

1987City of Anniston v. State , 265 Ala. 303 , 91 So.2d 211 (1956); Town of Hackleburg v. Northwest Gas Dist. , 277 Ala. 355 , 170 So.2d 792 (1964); Tillman v. City of Homewood , 374 So.2d 271 (Ala. 1979).

1956In Hollingsworth & Whitney Co. v. State, 241 Ala. 96 , 1 So.2d 387, 388 , the franchise tax as amended was before the Court and this Court said: “The franchise tax is not a condition or qualification to ‘doing business’ ” and “W.e have often noted that this tax is an excise for the privilege of doing business in Alabama.” And analyzing the record further the court continued: “We think that this status shows a doing of business in Alabama, by the taxpayer, so as to subject it to a franchise tax.” W.e are satisfied that the franchise tax is only applicable to foreign corporations doing intrastat

1956In Hollingsworth & Whitney Co. v. State, 241 Ala. 96 , 1 So.2d 387, 388 , the franchise tax as amended was before the Court and this Court said: “The franchise tax is not a condition or qualification to ‘doing business’ ” and “W.e have often noted that this tax is an excise for the privilege of doing business in Alabama.” And analyzing the record further the court continued: “We think that this status shows a doing of business in Alabama, by the taxpayer, so as to subject it to a franchise tax.” W.e are satisfied that the franchise tax is only applicable to foreign corporations doing intrastat

1941And in Investors’ Syndicate v. State, 227 Ala. 216 , 149 So. 83, 85 , it is thus expressed: “The franchise tax is for the privilege of exercising corporate functions.” This is repeated in Southern Natural Gas Corp. v. State of Alabama, 233 Ala. 81 , 170 So. 178 , where emphasis is placed on the fact that the privilege is the subject of taxation,-not the business itself.

1941And in Investors’ Syndicate v. State, 227 Ala. 216 , 149 So. 83, 85 , it is thus expressed: “The franchise tax is for the privilege of exercising corporate functions.” This is repeated in Southern Natural Gas Corp. v. State of Alabama, 233 Ala. 81 , 170 So. 178 , where emphasis is placed on the fact that the privilege is the subject of taxation,-not the business itself.

1941And in Investors’ Syndicate v. State, 227 Ala. 216 , 149 So. 83, 85 , it is thus expressed: “The franchise tax is for the privilege of exercising corporate functions.” This is repeated in Southern Natural Gas Corp. v. State of Alabama, 233 Ala. 81 , 170 So. 178 , where emphasis is placed on the fact that the privilege is the subject of taxation,-not the business itself.

1941And in Investors’ Syndicate v. State, 227 Ala. 216 , 149 So. 83, 85 , it is thus expressed: “The franchise tax is for the privilege of exercising corporate functions.” This is repeated in Southern Natural Gas Corp. v. State of Alabama, 233 Ala. 81 , 170 So. 178 , where emphasis is placed on the fact that the privilege is the subject of taxation,-not the business itself.

1939The payment of an excise and privilege tax (Nachman v. State Tax Commission, 233 Ala. 626 , 173 So. 25 ) on gasoline consumed in school busses used exclusively for the transportation of school children or teachers to and from school is, in a sense, an application and payment for an educational purpose, and this was, in effect, the decision in State Tax Commission v. Board of Education of Jefferson County, 235 Ala. 388 , 179 So. 197 .

1939The payment of an excise and privilege tax (Nachman v. State Tax Commission, 233 Ala. 626 , 173 So. 25 ) on gasoline consumed in school busses used exclusively for the transportation of school children or teachers to and from school is, in a sense, an application and payment for an educational purpose, and this was, in effect, the decision in State Tax Commission v. Board of Education of Jefferson County, 235 Ala. 388 , 179 So. 197 .

1939There is analogy in Scott v. Mattingly, Ala. Sup. 182 So. 24 , 1 decided later.

1937Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Phelps, 288 U.S. 181 , 53 S.Ct. 321 , 77 L.Ed. 687 , 83 A.L.R. 1438 ; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Brickell, 233 U.S. 304 , 34 S.Ct. 493 , 58 L.Ed. 974 ; American Bakeries Co. v. City of Opelika, 229 Ala. 388 , 157 So. 206 . *358 ■ This court has held that section 217, article 11, Constitution of Alabama, deals with a direct tax, and has no application to an excise or privilege tax.

1937Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Phelps, 288 U.S. 181 , 53 S.Ct. 321 , 77 L.Ed. 687 , 83 A.L.R. 1438 ; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Brickell, 233 U.S. 304 , 34 S.Ct. 493 , 58 L.Ed. 974 ; American Bakeries Co. v. City of Opelika, 229 Ala. 388 , 157 So. 206 . *358 ■ This court has held that section 217, article 11, Constitution of Alabama, deals with a direct tax, and has no application to an excise or privilege tax.

1937Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Phelps, 288 U.S. 181 , 53 S.Ct. 321 , 77 L.Ed. 687 , 83 A.L.R. 1438 ; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Brickell, 233 U.S. 304 , 34 S.Ct. 493 , 58 L.Ed. 974 ; American Bakeries Co. v. City of Opelika, 229 Ala. 388 , 157 So. 206 . *358 ■ This court has held that section 217, article 11, Constitution of Alabama, deals with a direct tax, and has no application to an excise or privilege tax.

1937Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Phelps, 288 U.S. 181 , 53 S.Ct. 321 , 77 L.Ed. 687 , 83 A.L.R. 1438 ; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Brickell, 233 U.S. 304 , 34 S.Ct. 493 , 58 L.Ed. 974 ; American Bakeries Co. v. City of Opelika, 229 Ala. 388 , 157 So. 206 . *358 ■ This court has held that section 217, article 11, Constitution of Alabama, deals with a direct tax, and has no application to an excise or privilege tax.

1937Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Phelps, 288 U.S. 181 , 53 S.Ct. 321 , 77 L.Ed. 687 , 83 A.L.R. 1438 ; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Brickell, 233 U.S. 304 , 34 S.Ct. 493 , 58 L.Ed. 974 ; American Bakeries Co. v. City of Opelika, 229 Ala. 388 , 157 So. 206 . *358 ■ This court has held that section 217, article 11, Constitution of Alabama, deals with a direct tax, and has no application to an excise or privilege tax.

1937Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Phelps, 288 U.S. 181 , 53 S.Ct. 321 , 77 L.Ed. 687 , 83 A.L.R. 1438 ; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Brickell, 233 U.S. 304 , 34 S.Ct. 493 , 58 L.Ed. 974 ; American Bakeries Co. v. City of Opelika, 229 Ala. 388 , 157 So. 206 . *358 ■ This court has held that section 217, article 11, Constitution of Alabama, deals with a direct tax, and has no application to an excise or privilege tax.

1937Phoenix Carpet Co. v. State, 118 Ala. 143 , 22 So. 627 , 72 Am.St.Rep. 143 , and this has been uniformly followed by the later decisions.

1929This was stated conversely in the case of Kidd v. State, 188 U. S. 730 , 23 S. Ct. 401 , 47 L.

1929This was stated conversely in the case of Kidd v. State, 188 U. S. 730 , 23 S. Ct. 401 , 47 L.