“[o]ur General Assembly is under no constitutional prohibition against double taxation . . . [but] it is to be avoided where the intent of the legislature is ambiguous”
How later courts described this case
- “[o]ur General Assembly is under no constitutional prohibition against double taxation . . . [but] it is to be avoided where the intent of the legislature is ambiguous”
- a distinction between “license” and “tax” was drawn for the limited purpose of defining the phrase “license tax”
- relevant provision imposed gross earnings taxes on telephone companies "in lieu of all” other taxes
- “we are confined to the intention which is expressed in the words [the legislature] has used”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Jennings, J.
(dissenting in part). I agree in the main with this opinion, but think that the exemption granted the telephone company by § 1321 is broad enough to free it from the obligation of paying the use tax, which is a tax on the purchaser.