New York Rapid Transit Corp. v. New York
303 U.S. 573 (1938)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

New York Rapid Transit Corp. v. New York, 303 U.S. 573 (1938)

New York Rapid Transit Corp. v. City of New York

No. 435

Argued February 7, 1938

Decided March 28, 1938*

303 U.S. 573

Syllabus

1 Since carriers or other utilities with the right of eminent domain, the use of public property, special franchises, or public contracts, have many points of distinction from other businesses, including relative freedom from competition, they may for purposes of taxation be classed separately. P. 303 U. S. 578.

2. Utilities subject to supervision by the New York Department of Public Service, including those engaged in transportation of persons or property and those furnishing gas, electricity, steam, water, communication by telegraph or telephone, were subjected by local laws of the City of New York to privilege taxes of 3% of their gross incomes. The laws were enacted for short periods under authority from the state legislature, and the proceeds were earmarked for use exclusively in relieving the unemployed in the City. Transit companies operating in the City assailed the levies under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the contract clause of the Federal Constitution.

Held:

(1) It is not a valid objection that the taxpayers are defined by reference to the classification previously established by the New York Public Service Law, rather than by specific reference in the taxing law itself to the character of their businesses. P. 303 U. S. 579.

(2) Separate classification of the utilities taxed is justifiable, upon the grounds that they enjoy a special measure of statutory protection from competition; that they are required to make financial reports to public authority which are of administrative convenience in ascertaining and collecting such taxes, and that the revenues of such utilities, furnishing indispensable services, may be subject to relatively little fluctuation, even in times of depression. P. 303 U. S. 580.

(3) The facts that the transit companies have a low margin of net income, and that, because of contracts with the City, they cannot pass on the added tax burden by increasing their charges, are fortuitous, and do not render the taxes arbitrary and unreasonably

Page 303 U. S. 574

discriminatory against them as compared with the other utilities or with business in general. P. 303 U. S. 581.

The legislature is not required to make meticulous adjustments in an effort to avoid incidental hardships.

(4) Taxes on gross receipts, rather than on net income, are justified upon the ground of convenience in administration and because of the close relation of the volume of transactions in a business to cost of its supervision and protection by government. Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Lewis,294 U. S. 550, distinguished. P. 303 U. S. 582.

(5) The fact that the tax is levied for the specific purpose of relieving conditions (unemployment) to which the utilities taxed bear no special relation does not render it unconstitutional. P. 303 U. S. 584.

(6) Within the meaning of the rule that classification must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, the "object" in this case is the raising of the revenue. That an appropriation of the funds for relief is part of the same legislation is not significant; it is not constitutionally necessary that the classification for the tax be related to the appropriation of the proceeds. P. 303 U. S. 585.

(7) The laws under consideration do not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 303 U. S. 587.

3. To sustain a claim of contractual tax exemption, the language must be clear and express. P. 303 U. S. 593.

4. In deciding a case under the contract clause, this Court determines for itself the existence and meaning of the contract, but, in so doing, it leans toward agreement with the courts of the State and accepts their judgment unless manifestly wrong. P. 303 U. S. 593.

5. In a contract between the City of New York and a transit corporation, the City agreed to construct certain railroads and the company to contribute to their cost and equipment and to reconstruct and build additions to its own railroads. The City leased the railroads it agreed to construct to the company, and the company agreed to operate them, in conjunction with its own as one system, for a designated fare. The gross receipts were to be pooled; deductions were to be made, in their order, first to reimburse the company for specified expenses and outlays, including taxes, and then to reimburse the City for certain interest and amortization charges, and the remainder was to be divided equally between the City and the company. The tax deduction included

"all taxes . . . of every description (whether on physical property, stock or securities, corporate or other franchises, or otherwise)

Page 303 U. S. 575

assessed or which may hereafter be assessed against the Lessee in connection with . . . the operation of the . . . Railroad."

At the time of making the contract, the taxing power of the City was confined to special assessments for public improvements and ad valorem taxes on real estate and on special franchises granted by the City. Later, under new power acquired from the legislature, the City levied a privilege tax of 3% of the gross receipts.

Held:

(1) That the collection of such tax was not in violation of the contract, but in accordance with its express terms. Pp. 303 U. S. 588, 303 U. S. 591.

(2) The contract may not be construed as limiting the taxes deductible from gross receipts to those which the City was authorized to impose when the contract was made. P. 303 U. S. 591.

275 N.Y. 258, 454; 9 N.E.2d 858; 11 id. 293, affirmed.

Appeals from judgments of the Supreme Court of New York, entered on remittitur from the Court of Appeals. These were actions to recover from the City large sums exacted as taxes. The Special Term of the Supreme Court held the taxes void; the Appellate Division affirmed, 251 App.Div. 710; 296 N.Y.S. 1006, 1012; the Court of Appeals upheld the taxes and reversed the judgments.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.