stock clause in Pennsylvania

2014Commonwealth v. Banks [ 596 Pa. 297 ], 943 A.2d 230 (Pa.2007) (per cu-riam ) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 726): in December 2004, the Supreme Court assumed plenary jurisdiction over a serial PCRA petition filed by Banks’s mother as “next friend” on his behalf, seeking a stay of execution and alleging, inter alia, that Banks was incompetent to be executed under Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 [ 106 S.Ct. 2595 , 91 L.Ed.2d 335 ] (1986).

2014Commonwealth v. Banks [ 596 Pa. 297 ], 943 A.2d 230 (Pa.2007) (per cu-riam ) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 726): in December 2004, the Supreme Court assumed plenary jurisdiction over a serial PCRA petition filed by Banks’s mother as “next friend” on his behalf, seeking a stay of execution and alleging, inter alia, that Banks was incompetent to be executed under Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 [ 106 S.Ct. 2595 , 91 L.Ed.2d 335 ] (1986).

2014Commonwealth v. Banks [ 596 Pa. 297 ], 943 A.2d 230 (Pa.2007) (per cu-riam ) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 726): in December 2004, the Supreme Court assumed plenary jurisdiction over a serial PCRA petition filed by Banks’s mother as “next friend” on his behalf, seeking a stay of execution and alleging, inter alia, that Banks was incompetent to be executed under Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 [ 106 S.Ct. 2595 , 91 L.Ed.2d 335 ] (1986).

2014Commonwealth v. Banks [ 596 Pa. 297 ], 943 A.2d 230 (Pa.2007) (per cu-riam ) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 726): in December 2004, the Supreme Court assumed plenary jurisdiction over a serial PCRA petition filed by Banks’s mother as “next friend” on his behalf, seeking a stay of execution and alleging, inter alia, that Banks was incompetent to be executed under Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 [ 106 S.Ct. 2595 , 91 L.Ed.2d 335 ] (1986).

2005In determining what relief was due, the court noted that “[t]he United States Supreme Court was confronted with a nearly identical situation in McKesson v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Dept. of Business Regulation of Florida, [ 496 U.S. 18 , 110 S.Ct. 2238 , 110 L.Ed.2d 17 (1990)].” Id. at 600, 757 A.2d at 349 .

2005In determining what relief was due, the court noted that “[t]he United States Supreme Court was confronted with a nearly identical situation in McKesson v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Dept. of Business Regulation of Florida, [ 496 U.S. 18 , 110 S.Ct. 2238 , 110 L.Ed.2d 17 (1990)].” Id. at 600, 757 A.2d at 349 .

2005Specifically, the Supreme Court noted that “[t]he net effect of the stock clause is that ‘the only stock on which an owner is liable to pay tax pursuant to the stock clause is on stock in foreign corporations which do not do business in Pennsylvania.’ ” Annenberg, 562 Pa. at 586 n. 4, 757 A.2d at 841 n. 4 (citation omitted).

2005Specifically, the Supreme Court noted that “[t]he net effect of the stock clause is that ‘the only stock on which an owner is liable to pay tax pursuant to the stock clause is on stock in foreign corporations which do not do business in Pennsylvania.’ ” Annenberg, 562 Pa. at 586 n. 4, 757 A.2d at 841 n. 4 (citation omitted).

2000Our second reason for rejecting the Counties' argument is that they have not established that the stock clause tax "is fairly related to the services provided by the State [which benefit interstate commerce]." Fulton, 516 U.S. at 334 , 116 S.Ct. 848 .

2000Our second reason for rejecting the Counties’ argument is that they have not established that the stock clause tax “is fairly related to the services provided by the State [which benefit interstate commerce].” Fulton, 516 U.S. at 334 , 116 5.

2000Thus, the net effect of the stock clause is that "the only stock on which an owner is liable to pay tax pursuant to the stock clause is on stock in foreign corporations which do not do business in Pennsylvania." Annenberg I, ___ Pa. at ___, 757 A.2d at 336. [5] We recognize that the matter of Masloff v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 531 Pa. 416 , 613 A.2d 1186 (1992), wherein this Court stated that it would employ a variant of the abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the findings of the "chancellor" below, shares some common procedural elements with the matter sub judice.

2000Thus, the net effect of the stock clause is that "the only stock on which an owner is liable to pay tax pursuant to the stock clause is on stock in foreign corporations which do not do business in Pennsylvania." Annenberg I, ___ Pa. at ___, 757 A.2d at 336. [5] We recognize that the matter of Masloff v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 531 Pa. 416 , 613 A.2d 1186 (1992), wherein this Court stated that it would employ a variant of the abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the findings of the "chancellor" below, shares some common procedural elements with the matter sub judice.

2000Thus, the net effect of the stock clause is that "the only stock on which an owner is liable to pay tax pursuant to the stock clause is on stock in foreign corporations which do not do business in Pennsylvania.” Annenberg I, 562 Pa. at 576-77 , 757 A.2d at 336 . .

2000Thus, the net effect of the stock clause is that "the only stock on which an owner is liable to pay tax pursuant to the stock clause is on stock in foreign corporations which do not do business in Pennsylvania.” Annenberg I, 562 Pa. at 576-77 , 757 A.2d at 336 . .

1973Such would be the case if the sale had been the reason for the breakdown of the private offering exemption: Fuller v. Dilbert, 244 F.Supp. 196 (1965).

1917As stated in Moore v. Lichtenberger, 26 Pa. Superior Ct. 268 -272, “a premium is the compensation paid a company for the indemnity furnished; when the insurance is upon a stock principle, the premium is usually a sum certain or capable of being made certain.” Inasmuch as the losses to be borne in mutual companies are usually an indefinite and uncertain amount, it would appear that where a cash premium was paid it embraces all of the policyholder’s liability for losses of the company, unless the statute or by-laws provided otherwise.

1904“The essential principle on which mutual companies are organized is that each member will pay his proportionate share-of the losses suffered and expenses incurred during the period of his membership: ” Stockley v. Riebenack, 12 Pa. Superior Ct. 169 ; People’s Fire Insurance Company v. Hartshorne, 90 Pa. 465 ; Schimpf v. Insurance Company, 86 Pa. 373 .

1904“The essential principle on which mutual companies are organized is that each member will pay his proportionate share-of the losses suffered and expenses incurred during the period of his membership: ” Stockley v. Riebenack, 12 Pa. Superior Ct. 169 ; People’s Fire Insurance Company v. Hartshorne, 90 Pa. 465 ; Schimpf v. Insurance Company, 86 Pa. 373 .

1904“The essential principle on which mutual companies are organized is that each member will pay his proportionate share-of the losses suffered and expenses incurred during the period of his membership: ” Stockley v. Riebenack, 12 Pa. Superior Ct. 169 ; People’s Fire Insurance Company v. Hartshorne, 90 Pa. 465 ; Schimpf v. Insurance Company, 86 Pa. 373 .