CONTINENTAL ASSURANCE CO.
v.
TENNESSEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Tennessee sought to collect privilege taxes from Continental Assurance Company on insurance premiums from policies issued while the company was licensed in the state, even though the premiums were paid after the company withdrew from the state. The Supreme Court of Tennessee upheld the tax, construing it as a tax on the privilege of doing business in the state (measured by premiums on policies issued during the company's licensing period) rather than a tax on premiums received after withdrawal, and the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of a substantial federal question, finding the case distinguishable from prior precedent.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
The State of Tennessee brought this suit to enforce payment of privilege taxes measured by premiums on policies -of insurance issued while appellant.was doitig business /. Within the State, but upon1 which the premiums were paid . after its withdrawal from the State. Appellant contended that since its withdrawal it had transacted no business within the State; that the policyholders there had mailed their premiums on unmatured policies to the home office of appellant in another State; and that to hold it liable for •thetaxes demanded would deprive it of its property in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution pf. the United States.
' The Supreme Court of Tennessee sustained the tax. It construed the statutory provisions to mean “that the tax is levied upon the right to do business in the state, measured by a percentage of annual premiums to the éxclusion of all. other taxes, the tax on the annual premiums to be paid throughout the life of policies issued”; that though “measured by two and a half per cent of premiums received oil policies issued by the company while exercising its license from the state, the tax was levied upon the privilege of entering the state ánd engaging in the insurance business, and not upon the annual premiums”; and that the appellant “by its compliance with the statute adopted and agreed to-the construction we have given it; and cannot now. repudiate its provisions.” 137 S. W. 2d 277.
This construction of the statute distinguishes the case from that of Provident Savings & Life Assurance Society v. Kentucky, 239 U. S. 103. There the question under the statute, as it had been construed by the state court, was whether the insurance company continued to do business within the. State for the period under consideration, despite the fact that it had withdrawn from the State, merely because of the'receipt'of premiums after, withdrawal. Thp tax was not laid upon thfe privilege of doing business during the period that the company was actually within the State, the tax on that privilege being measured by the premiums received during the life of the policies. Id., pp. 110, 111. The Supreme Court of Tennessee emphasized the point of this distinction in its opinion on rehearing. 138 S. W. 2d 447. Compare State v. Insurance Company, 106 Tenn. 282, 333-335; 61 S. W. 75.
The appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. .
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1946)…ts borders.” Lincoln National Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 325 U. S. 673, 677. See Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410; Philadelphia Fire Assn. v. New York, 119 U. S. 110; Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Harding, 272 U. S. 494; Continental Assurance Co. v. Tennessee, 311 U. S. 5. See discussion in Henderson, The Position of Foreign Corporations in American Constitutional Law (1918) 101 if. The related contention that Congress’ “adoption” of South Carolina’s statute amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’ leg…
-
Dep't of Treas. of Ind. v. Wood Preserving Corp., 313 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1941)…respondent had a constitutional right to escape that burden by arranging to have the.proceeds of its intrastate transactions paid to it in another State. Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Chamberlain, supra, p. 120; Continental Assurance Co. v. Tennessee, 311 U. S. 5. Further, as the sole subject of the challenged tax is the income derived from respondent’s sales to the Railroad Company there is no occasion for apportionment. The creosoting operations in Ohio, and the income derived from them, were not involved…
-
Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 325 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1945)…rd. Moreover, it has never been held that a State may not exact from a foreign corporation as a condition to admission to do business the payment of a tax measured by the business done within its borders. See Continental Assurance Co. v. Tennessee, 311 U. S. 5. That was the nature of the tax imposed in Philadelphia Fire Assn. v. New York, supra. That company was licensed to do business in New York under a law which required it to pay such a tax as its home State might impose on New York companies doing bu…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Provident Sav. Life Assurance Soc'y v. Commonwealth of Ky., 239 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1915)