Taxation — Mercantile license tax — Transactions on bailment leases — Capital stock tax — Double taxation — Acts of May 2, 1899, P. L. 184, and April 25, 1929, P. L. 681.
1. Transactions on bailment leases are part of the whole volume of business of a retail dealer or vendor within the meaning of section 4 of the Act of May 2, 1899, P. L. 184, amended by section 4 of the Act of April 25, 1929, P. L. 681, which provides that the whole volume of business, including cash receipts and merchandise sold on credit, shall be the basis upon which the mercantile license is to be rated. [181-3]
2. The inclusion of cash received from bailment leases within the gross volume of the business of a retail dealer or vendor which pays a capital stock tax does not constitute double taxation. [183]
3. Double taxation exists only where the subject of both taxes is the same. [183]
4. The capital stock tax is a property tax; the mercantile license tax is a tax on the privilege of doing business in a certain manner. [183]
Argued October 7, 1936.
PER CURIAM, November 23, 1936:
Appellant contends that if the cash received from bailment leases is included within the gross volume of its business for purposes of assessing the mercantile license tax, it will amount to double taxation because the value of the leased goods is also included within its property valuation for capital stock tax purposes. But it is established that double taxation exists only where the subject of both taxes is the same. The capital stock tax is a property tax; the mercantile license tax is a tax on the privilege of doing business in a certain manner. This distinction has been previously noted in Commonwealth v. Bailey, Banks Biddle Co., 20 Pa. Super. 210, where a similar contention was ruled upon adversely to appellant. See also Commonwealth v. Harrisburg L. P. Co., 284 Pa. 175, 179. Appellant's other contentions are all fully answered in the opinion of the court below.
Judgment affirmed.