Show BAN BANK I ARE NOT CREDITS Important Ren ored In Inan inan an Ogdon T Tax X Celt lAO It COUItT No 10 lI n ud ad or orIn In an opinion by tM th Supreme court It li 14 tb Stocks I br In s cOl corporation doln hi 1 Utah ar are DOt AI J In ot of the constitution and lava ot thi State rom Which tM tho boa buna Ade lid debts or of the Individual stockholder can an be deducted for tor the df t also alao that In assessing th stock toe of IUd corporation it II I Is hel held that lb the value of real rol estate tate of f the beak situated the State be 4 from the capital stock mo more that th indorsed debts or of ident cannot he bt deducted from U the value valus ot 01 tb the stock ork The decisIon was wa rendered In the call of the Commercial National Hank Baak of Ogden Oden T vi Alma D Chambers of appellant OF CASE This suit ault w was brought b by the plaintiff bank the treasurer of Weber county to have declared void old all taxes against the bank for tor the year ar 18 ta n excess ot of and to ha have havethe ve the treasurer from collecting uch auch nun sad and from enforcing the collection by sale or otherwise Fur For the purposes ot of taxation the banks capital stock In 1118 was wa valued at It Itral Its real ral estate In hi Utah was wa valued at 2735 and It its real estate estal outside the State at In levying the tn tax th the value of the real estate situated within the State Stat wu was deducted from the alue lue or of the tack stock but a deduction or of the value ot of the real estate situate outside the State was wa refused Likewise the deW debt or of shareholders were deducted from the value alue or of the stock and deduction Itu refused or of aach debts of nonresident ent shareholderS The total amount ot of tax levied the stock and claimed by Ib the treasurer tit of Weber county for tor 1198 was The fhe amount offered by the plaintiff wu was The rue case WU was tried before Judge who entered a deer decree In lavor avor ot of the plaintiff bank when the d ds ap appealed ale Tb Ibe material question Involved Wa waS the ball was entitled to tie de tieu 0 u n be t t to 11 ut ot or the Nil 1 IMe without the limit of the State Stat sad to bave tb the bona ills debtS of n deducted from the value I ot their stock In tb the 18 ease at bar deduction were made from the value or of the took stock or of orthe the value or of I real estate oW by bythe the bank In Ih the State but deductions deduction I If situate without the I f its 1111 real estate State were refused lIy by the assessor and amI board or of equalisation but the court be beIJ IJ lw ordered that the value alu ot of tb the real estate situate In other states ta should also alo be deducted from the value valli of the stock In this the Supreme CO coart art linda Judge Judie erred Suppose says the court three fourths fourth of the property In valOe ot of tb the stock were situate In another State II its tock stock was a worth warth one tl rents ta on the dollar and for Cor the purpose or of the value or of such property were deducted from the value of the stock could it II be mid id that tbt the stock was wa assessed at its cash vluT QUESTION OF DEDUCTION On th the whether the bank was waa I entitled to hu hive such uch deductions deduction made from the valuation ot of the I the cou court rt reasons is at Collo The question remains remain whether the In were entitled II to have hae th their lr debU deducted l from the value aluf ot of their stock lock or rather whether the bank WU was entitled to 10 have such de n made from Crom the valuation or of ortho the tho tock stock it t appears appear that Individual debts bY shareholders w were di de d from the value ot of their abates ha habut but deductions deduction wr were refused refund non nola shareholders by the The court however allowed thi dl alao hio to 10 be made mael ton tonda II lui ll tl CertaInly It if who It ne e residIng In thle th is State are in to deduct their debts from the alU ot Of thel ha those who are te nl In another State are likewise en n The law permits ao lion tion be hn sen Ih the I two wo classes of oC haft h Ider In national banks and the dl dis attempted to be made mad by b the ass 1 nina omeera be a clear and nd is In favor of dent un of oC stock anti and II would be to assIgn any rood reason for the the same a as the resident stockholder IU may e db debi which h he owes In this tate And thc tbt or of both aUk alike is II llYN Invested In till bank No such uch discrimination is II t tel tot el eted by bv the laws lun of this State BIale or Dr ot og tie UnitIeS Unit States Aside Alde from the tact fae however that irn such uch unfriendly dl ran can be permitted by what authority can any anI such auth deduction be benade nade whether the lie be held II by 1 a or In vain have hae WI w th the and statu tor tori t uC this State Slate t relating latin to the Ihl or of taxation for tor the exist existence enee ence ot of such a power Ower and none 1100 has ba hasteen teen out by bv counsel on either offO The provides for tor H the deduction ot of debts from credits but bul QI as WI we have Hl seen that r provisIon roI lon does not authorise a or of flom Storks ar are not an more II ore than cr crha its ha are stocks within the or of the statute tb the term credit As AI h has already been ob observed served ernd and stocks under our system of are and of f Neither In ito Ih other and Ill as th Cram fram H Is fIt of II n sn n tit fit to top p lIt ul n n nil n as the hInt r f 1 VJ rt V Irm I hi h might be deducted they have bue nn an to prohibIt the deduction of 1 1110 from any other IJ species ot of prop eth Th x In ot of tl on one ox IX hr kin kind No doubt the t nc In It its rapacity a all as allan EiT an a t entity ty liB bar h rIght to I have its Inn trat ty y It in the fit f II its hank hankIn hanking In ing d IJ frum its Ita end credits I tAl tAlor or and ancl capital employed for that thatis is necessary to the reel real value ot of Ibe be lit II which value mount amounts to what can lall bf be realIzed from th rl ot of the corporation after Its Ita obligations I I q are paid Thu wt red th ate of the credits or lIt the amount of the debt end Ci Ili vain of the it or capital sa lW te vain 1 the ha tia be ud for the pu I individual I it the ben cit of the d f from cred credIts Its and Ii in which ho Ii entitled from the alue of his I flut the law does not t k o deduct disconnected f i betes nor the bank or hailer to have his Individual debts Voted from the value of his stock Th incurred tn the Of the corporate irs lb or ca so at the value of the may be determined and d levied there thereon on In are of the court erred In fior of the plaintiff Tv iii have en entered in favor the The case M with and the court below 11 hi deere and 3 In d h The itt by sd askIn effect of will hi to of Con fat the sen it ha been the un assessors heretofore to treat me to the te and C deduct O thet Iid cit bt frim the the tax upon the |