ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY.
Taft, Holmes, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Brandeis, Sutherland, Butler, Sanford, Stone
MR. JUSTICE STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Swiss Oil Corporation, plaintiff in error, instituted a mandamus proceeding in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Kentucky, to compel the state auditor, the defendant in error, to issue a warrant for the refund of taxes alleged to have been illegally assessed against it, on the ground among others, that the taxing statute was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. This is the appropriate procedure, under the state law, for compelling a return to the taxpayer of taxes improperly collected. § 162, Carroll Ky. Stat. 1922; Craig, Auditor v. Renaker, 201 Ky. 576.
The trial court gave judgment for plaintiff which was reversed on appeal to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky. 208 Ky. 64. The case comes here on writ of error. Jud. Code, § 237.
Plaintiff is engaged in producing crude oil in Kentucky and delivering it to pipe lines for transportation to points outside of the state. The tax in question was levied for the period from March, 1922 to February, 1924, pursuant to the Act of March 29, 1918, c. 122, Acts 1918, p. 540, which requires those "producing crude petroleum oil" in the state to pay "in lieu of all other taxes on the wells producing said crude petroleum" an annual tax "of one per centum of the market value of all crude petroleum so produced." Section 3 of the Act provides "the tax hereby provided for shall be imposed and attach when the crude petroleum is first transported from the tanks or other receptacles located at the place of production." By other sections those engaged in the business of transporting oil are required to report to the tax officials, the amount of oil transported by them and to pay the tax, and they are authorized to collect the amount of the tax from the producer, either in money or crude petroleum. This Act, as stated in its title, is an amendment and re-enactment of the Act of May 2, 1917, c. 7, Acts 1917, p. 40, which similarly required oil producers to pay in lieu of other taxes a "license" or "franchise" tax for the "right or privilege of engaging in such business," within the state. The producers themselves, under the 1917 Act, were required to pay the tax and to report the amount of the oil produced to the State Tax Commission on the first day of July of that year and at the end of each succeeding three months. The taxpayer was entitled, under the 1917 Act, to notice of the valuation placed by the Commission upon the oil produced and had ten days from the time of receiving notice to go before the Commission and contest the valuation. He was privileged to
introduce evidence and the Commission was authorized, after a hearing, to change the value set for taxation purposes upon the oil produced.
This Act, as amended, was construed by the Kentucky Court of Appeals, in an earlier decision, Raydure v. Board of Supervisors, 183 Ky. 84. It there held that the legislature had no power under §§ 171 and 172 of the state constitution to substitute the production tax authorized by the Act of 1917 as amended by the Act of 1918 for the ad valorem method of taxing oil producing property required by the constitution, nor to exempt such property from ad valorem taxation. Following this decision, the wells and oil producing property of plaintiff and others have been subjected to state, county and local ad valorem taxes in addition to the production tax imposed upon plaintiff.
Plaintiff in the state court drew in question the validity of the Act of 1918 as thus construed under the Kentucky constitution. It contended that if construed as imposing a license tax, the statute was unconstitutional in attempting to substitute an occupation for the ad valorem tax required by § 172 of the state constitution. The main contention however was that the tax in substance was a property and not a license tax and hence invalid under § 171 of the state constitution requiring uniform taxation, since oil properties were subject to two property taxes whereas other classes of property were subject to but one. These contentions translated into terms of the Federal Constitution were urged below and renewed here.
It is argued (a) that the Act of 1918 as construed and administered by the state authorities imposes double taxation upon the plaintiff not put on other classes of property, thus denying the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment; (b) that it authorizes a tax upon interstate ...