Maxwell, Comr. of Revenue v. . Tull

Stacy, C. J. Tbe pertinent clause in section 311% of tbe Bevenue Act of 1935 is, that “income from stock in foreign corporations, either in casb or stock dividends, . . . shall be subject to a tax of six per cent,” etc. It is tbe position of tbe petitioner that tbe Coca-Cola stock received by her from tbe Olympia Investment Corporation in 1935 was neither a “casb” dividend nor a “stock” dividend of tbe disbursing corporation, and that therefore it was not subject to tax under tbe above provision of tbe Bevenue Act. Tbe respondent concedes that it was not a stock dividend, Trust Co. v. Mason, 152 N. C., 660, 68 S. E., 235, but contends that it has all tbe characteristics of a casb dividend, Trust Co. v. Taintor, 85 Conn., 452, 83 Atl., 697, and was in fact such a dividend. Humphrey v. Lang, 169 N. C., 601, 86 S. E., 526. Additionally, it is tbe position of tbe respondent that tbe words “either in casb or stock dividends,” appearing in said section, were not intended to be restrictive, but were inserted therein to make clear tbe taxability of stock dividends, all other dividends being regarded as casb or its equivalent. Morgan v. Wisconsin Tax Commission, 195 Wis., 405, 217 N. W., 407, 61 A. L. R., 357. We think tbe tax in question must be upheld as a tax on tbe “income-from stock in foreign corporations.” Tbe Coca-Cola stock was taken from tbe surplus assets of tbe Olympia Investment Corporation and immediately became tbe property of tbe petitioner. This was tbe equivalent of a casb dividend and in legal parlance is so classified. 11 C. J., 22. “Casb dividends include all distributions of surplus assets, whether in tbe form of casb or property, taken from tbe body of tbe assets to become tbe property of tbe shareholders.” Trust Co. v. Taintor, supra. Tbe correct result seems to have been reached. Affirmed.