# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Dameron v. Brodhead > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386407_0225%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1953 - **Citation:** 345 U.S. 322 ## Text 2 uaralnn al WO > etl prerapeontcte eer ated Dente reiehetdne 1 Sea ¢ CLAIBORNE DAMERON vs. ROY W. CASS : It is to be observed that giving. to servicemen the same protection , respecting bersonal property taxes as is given in the case ef in- come taxes in no” wise operates as an ere inption from taxation— the protection hitherto- afforded servicemen in respect to income taxes having the purpose’ of preventing’.their being subject to .income taxes in mote than one state of the ‘Unfon’ during the ‘same period of time, - We belipve it is. significant that neither in the act itself, nor in. the reports of the Congressional conynittees leading up to the enactment of the amendment, is there. any reference to granting exemption from. taxation. © Pea ea, ‘ ‘Phe Treasurer ofthe City and County of Denver does not claim — that plaintiff, by virtue-of his sojourn in Colerado under military orders, has lost.his domicile in Louisiana... There has beén no claim that. he should pay ‘a Colorado income tax for which fesi- dents of Colorado are liable.’ He is, in accordance with the fed-. eral statute, still deemed to be a resident of Muisiana, As to his intangible personal property, there is no contention that.its situs - should be deemed to be other than that in the State of Louisiana. But in respect to the personal tangible preperty of plainfiff, which ‘has had a phiysieal situs in Colorado during the whole of the tax-- able period as a result of which it appears it had no physical situs in Louisiana and was not subject. to taxation in that ‘state, we are of the gpinion that. the presumption accorded by the federal ‘Statute, that the situs was the State of Louisiana, has been effee- ne tively rebutted by the record: and there being no evidence to. — show that the domiciliary State of Louisiana has taxed’ the prop- erty, Colorado, as the state of actual physical situs; is free toslevy- and collect the tax for the period in guestion. It, js obvious that, o Louisiana having collected >-tax on. the “property, Colorado is the only other state that-can tax it, To deny Colorado this right - * turns the. federal statute into an éxemption. : 24- The basie fact in-the instant ease is’ that multiple taxa- y__. tion has not been shown to exist; thatthe only State in ., which taxation: has oceurred for the calendar year 1948 on the ~~’ ‘property in question is the, State of Colorado, There*is nothing in the record to show that the taxing officials of the domiciliary State + of. Louisiana, or any other state of the Union, have yndertaken pt levy taxes or have in faet collected taxes on the personal tangible property involved in this -ease. The. effect of the argument of counsel for Dameron is to reach a result whereby hé would wholly escape taxation on hs IT Trt pre ve are confi. dent that that was not ‘tthe purpose of the statute. ; Our use of the word é‘deemed’’ in the statute, as being the - equivalent of ‘{ presumed,’ is not without support. In Zimmer “man Vv. Zimmerman, *75 Ore. 085, 155 P. (2d) 293. the Oregon . ’ ¢ id . CLAIBORNE DAMERON Ys. ROY W. CASS ; 17 ‘@ Supreme Court applied such a mean fig to the. word “deemed, ”’ and then continued as follows ; | ag ‘Set forth in the Regtatement of Confliet of Laws.’’- 25. “We thin it clear from the authorities above cited that the Various constitutional provisions which’ state ‘that no. soldier shall be deemed to have acquirgd a residence in theastate in consequence of or by reason of having been stationeddwithin the same should be construed as if the word ‘merely’ were in- " serted immediately before words ‘in consequence of’ and that ———~ such constitutional provisions do not—prevent-the | acquisition of domicil-by y-soidier under the rules of ‘the common law ds ° : | In the instant case it will he noted that there is no nea i of supplying a modifying adverb, such. ax the word - “*merely,*’ used in the Oregon case, to bring out the true meaning. It already. is present in the phrase, “solely by reason of being absent therefrom [his domicile].’’ 6 re Sat Thus the Oregon court held that there was a rebuttable pre- sumption that the sojourning soldier did not acquire a residence ; hut that the contraty could be shown from facts other than his ‘Mere presence in Oregon uiider military orders, Satay So in the instant case we interpret the statute; ‘as applied ‘to the presented facts, as though it reads as follows: °° OG . . Colorado in comphance with military orders,’? a re ’ s mote ‘For the’ purposes of taxation in Tespect: of any person | [Dameron], or of his pérsonal property , [household goods | * * * by any State, denritory” wis, Ma City and County of: Denver]. such person [Danferon] shall not be deemed to have last a residence or domicile in’ arly State, .* # | { Louisiana] solely by reason. of “being. absent theréfrom in compliance -with military * # .* orders, or to have acquired & residence or domicile in, or to have become résident in or a resident of, any other State * #* # ‘[ Colorado}, while, and solely by reason of heing so absent. For the purposes of taxa- tion in respect of the personal ‘Property, 7. * -*. if any. such person [Dameron] by any State, *. # J [Colorgdo] of which such person is not a residént. or .in which: he is not domiciled, * * @#» his ‘‘ personal property shall not. be. ‘deemed to be located or present in or to have a. sitns for taxa-* tion in such ‘state * * « -[ Colorado} ”’ solely. hy reason of his being absent from Tonisiana and _statidned jy 2 cmp * We have repeated the phrase. ‘solely by reason of his heing ab- sent from. Louisiana. an ta d stationed in Colorado in compliahee with « Fh Tatar es " 18 ¢ CLAPBORNE DAMERON Vs., ROY .W. Cass uiilitary orders,’ because that is the Sort of person the statute is’ deséribing when it refers, in the last sentence, te ‘the personal property of afly such person, ‘ ; os bay A serviceman’s personal tangible ‘property is not -deeme%t. to be tocated jy Colorado solely by reason of its Colorado situs: and of his being alisent from his’ Louisiana domicile: There must be some ba . ___,.additional factor if that presumption is to be upset. That some- +S) thing élse, in the instant ‘ease, is tho complete failure to show that the property has been taxed in. the state of domicile.. We believe the second paragraph of the amendment indicates -the legislative intent that taxes in the state of domicile shall have been paid be- fore the inferences of situs of personal ‘tangible property can be brought into play- Thus sub-section B, having indicated® that ‘ the term *‘taxation’’ shaij inelude the additional items of licenses, fees or excises imposed in respect to’motor vehicles or the use there- of, immediately makes it clear thag those items must. be’ paid he- . fore they can be included within that term. , aoe > "Because of otir views as to the scope and limitations’ of the - Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act as applied to the facts in this case, and also because of our ‘Views that the application of the act in the instant case does not confliet with the taxing statute + ofthe City ‘andeCounty of Denver and the State of _27 ~~ Colorado, it ‘is. not’ ecessary that we consider. the second question raised by eotnsel for the Treasurer of the City and. _ County of PBenver, namely: That the provision of the Soldiers’ _and Sailors’ Civil Raief Act, here under-gjscussion, is unconsti- tutional. aa) : Oe. The judgment aceérdingly is reversed.” « (File Endorsement Omitted) 28 + aN THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO Judgment—May 12, 1952 6 i . ‘This eause having been brought to this Court by writ of error to review the judgment of the District Céurt‘of the City and County of Denver, and having been heretofore argued by pounsel and sub- . ° mitted to-the consideration hind judgment of the Court upon. the niatters assigned as constituting érebr. in the procedings and judg- ment of said District Court. thy ae | ee SR _ dt is therefore ordered und adjwlged that the judement of said Distriet Court be, and the same is hereby, reversed, annulled and altogether held for naught; and that -this catse he remanded to _, Sad District Court for further preceedings in harthony with the opinion of the Court on file. ° ; ae e pe es - CLAIBORNE DAMERON VS. ROY Ww. CASs — Pee | » : . ° . / . 4 ‘ we ° = | : IN SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO SEG ORAS ay ' Order—June 5, 1952 Se 7 os Upon consideration of the motion of the defendant - 4m error, , it is this day ordered that remit har herein be. is eee and stayed pending: appeal -of defendant i m error’ to the i 4s me Cert ot the ' United States. JG a 46. E : : > Sy ; ete, RS Sake Cierk’s Certificate to foregoing transcript omitted in printing. ; ; - L - : : ‘ Z “ “ “ fee : \ - @ ° Sl : ; : e . ° - } - é e ; 8 . / ; . 2? A r 7 - é 4 z . > * . . c - e o ° " a ! eo > zt Q ? + “US GOVERNMENT PRixt NG CFF; CE1952—222232/¢ 0 343 . ® 9 q of id ~e aa od oe > oe ‘eo 4 = e@ e oe . ' o Ree ' = io ° rue / ek a , . ; ~ 23 0°. In the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado Bees Ce & ss ris Shae iY : z ) | : ‘No. 16613 | : of 7; o 3 en ’ : ee Roy W. Cass; Manacer or ReveENvE anp Ex-OrriciozTrrasvren OF THE Crry:anp County oF IJENVER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR ’ f 7 . Sa : $ “ty v. , . ; : So CLampoRNE Daxirron, DEFENDANT IN ERROR 4 e ° i : e ‘Error ‘to the District Court of the City and Count y of Denver, , State of Colorailo. Honorable Flenry S. Lindsley, J udge. ee % . . . , 3 2 Order of substitution “ Se ry a ° : S 4 acs October 2;°1952 ° ne . : a . a . —y a 7 . 1 S. is Come now the bavak in Errot by his counsel and the De-. fendant in Error by his counsel,. and’ jointly move the Court to. + enter its Order substituting A. 8, Brodhead, Manager of Revenue * and Ex-Officio Treasurer of thie City and County of Denver, in the place and in the stead of Roy W. Cass, former Manager of Revenue and Ex-Officio Treasurer of the City and County of - Denver. Tess ee é Upen consideration wheredf, it is hereby ordered that A. S. Brodhead, Manager of Revenué and 1ux-Officia Freasurer of the _ City and County of Denver, be, and he hereby is, substituted as - ‘ Plaintiff in Error’ in this cause in, the place and stead of Roy W: Cass, former Manager of Revenue and Ex-Officio Freastirer of the City and County of Denver. ec sere Bys+he Court : . 9. Sosias “e Sy [SEAL]. UE SE acai e: she 8 2S EAE S. Jackson, _ : cat : Sat 3 Chief Justice.., ; | PERN FERED Sa ae nd ; In Department, October “SPIG2. © ’ Sie A true copy. ./ - ore. | Attest: : Poe ap TER RO ptic ees Pos | . _ Grorei: A. Trow, ° ie fae nee Abe seae : of the Supreme Court 3 ; ; *.. of the State of Colorado. : @ y c ) ° , = % . - y 4 ra ry * oe Vs i © 2426—8—h2 oN Ps : e : eer Lees ier: : ‘BaF ., . Supreme Court’ of the United. States . ont - — No. 302, October Term. 1952 © = “ - ; W ss ri ° ; . a4 . CLAIBORNE | JAMERON, PETITIONER MERO A.S, Bropueap, Manacek or Reven CE AND Ex-Orricio. TREASURER : ‘ . ea F a % * + $° OF THE Crry AND County og Denve®, 2 * YJ cs. -. ° Grder allowin g certiorari : Filed November 24, 1952 | The petition herein: for a writ of -certiorari to the Supreme Court .of thea State of Colorado is granted. Case transferred to the summary docket. ee ae: : 6 And it-\s further ordered that the duly certified copy of the “ transcript of the proceeding\belew which accompanied the peti- _. tion shall be treated as though We in response to such writ. 2 ‘ : ” é ; : et . % . °o pad *@ > P ; L ; : oe ; a ” rs 7 ‘ws SOVERMMENT PRINTING OFFICE. Soe Z ; ape : % . e . . . = : ‘ a ‘ - , ° * ° ‘ * , Z o fs Be Hoe, . ? ba . ¢ ’ s ° 7 i * 3 d 3 ‘ . ck ’ - = . 5 @ . > - . M e ’ Z . ° 7 : , . 74 > ev « , 3 . ._+* ~ = . s . . Fy . : . t. - 2 « . ° . 4 5 ° . : ¢ i é & ° : , . “ . = 2? “ pa ’ . ot $ ee -) ‘~ 2 - ad *. . *. . . . . 4 > ’ «05° , ‘ : > . . . . “* , . . ——>———————.. maar ¥ ween wanes . . id ‘ . . _ 6 . , 2) eee | . ; : Page Pinions below 4 i: WEES Jurisdiction 2 . Question presented “2: Statute involved meres eect ee tio: 2 Piste ss Fee eset tet ses 2 Reasons for granting the writ 2020 ohoo.. 4 Conelusion ta ee eee ee ee | 11 Appendix oe + ie } . . ; . . 3 CITATIONS. 3 y ERAN Sgt i Ms ee iets bse Boone y. Lightner; 319U. S561 7 Med ys We 9: Carson v. Roane-Anderson Co., 3420. 8.292. 9,10 Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Co, 240.80. * MD? Maistresy. Leffers, 333 U. S.1_ 2 ee Maricopa County y. Valley Bank, 318 U.S. 357. Pittman v. Home Owners Corp?, 308 U.S. 21 Statutes: -° 0. 3 - Act of July 3, 1944, ©. 397, 58 Stat. 799: Reel (50 U.S.C, App., 1946 ed.2See. 574) ' + 13 : See..2 (50 U.S.C. App., 1946 ed., Sev. 574 note), 15 Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act-of 1940, ¢. 88s, 54 Stat. 1178: eae See. 101 (50 U.S. C. App., 1946 ed., See. 511)... 9 See. 100 (50.U. S.C. App., 1946 ed. See gio) 12 See. 514 (50 U.S.C. App., 1946 ed., See. 574 ) 4, 5, 6, 7,13 Miscellaneous : ® Set chs | S. Rep. No. 959, 8th Cong., 2d- Sess, -. tet tomes O85 rs ? 1g ) oO PR ORD tee - ye —— - — : s : ° ° ‘ ‘ et re A e e . a _~ e . . & ; 5 ; A Br ° ” - » : . r . ; a he ; ‘ . = - ! e . ; ’ 7 : a —_ rf of Colorado ehtered on May 12, 1952, reveysi The District Court of the City and County of e “Sathe Supreme Gourtof the Waited States ¢ Ocroper TERM, 1952 : : : *g No. 302 . heeos : @: CLAIBORNE Dameron, PETITIONER - “ ge 7 A. S. Brovuean, MANAGER on Beyerin AND: Ex- OFFICIO TREASURER OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF | ‘DENVER | eas | ‘ RETITION FOR A‘WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO * The Acting Wolicitor General, on behalf of Clai, berne Dameron, prays that a. writ of certiorari. issue to review the judgment of the Supreme Court decision of the District Court of the Cj ; | County of Denver entered on March 18, 1950, Se x OPINIONS BELOW | Denver rendered no opinion. The amended opinion of, fhe Supreme (¢ ‘ourt.of Colorado. (R. 12) is not the respondent and solely for the purpose of avoid- - ing the imposition ‘upon himself and his property. - of penalties-and interest, and the seizure, impotnd-. ' ing and sale of his tangible personal property, paid to the Fespondent as’ Ex-officid-Preasurer of the ~~ City. and County of Denver under protest $23.51 - laimed by the respondent to be due and payable . as taxes ori such tangible soeaney property. Noe BOSS ee 3 Patent ih: _ Petitioner instituted this action to recover the tax. (R. 45.) On March ‘18, 1950, the District Court of the City and County-of 1 Jenver entered — its judgment in favor of the petitioner and against the respondent: (R. 8.) Phe Supreme Court of Colorado reversed. (R. 18.) | | | _ REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT - ~ The Supreme Court of Colorado has held that states and their political subdivisions in whith a member. of the armed forces temporarily resides purstant to military orders gnay tax his tangible personal property unless he has paid a tax on such property to the state of liis domicile. “The decision is clearly erroneolts in that it fails to give effect . to the express terms of Section 514 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act, as amended. If it - is allowed ‘to stand, it will expose members of the armed forces to the multiple taxation of personal — . as _ property which Congress ‘specifically intended to _ avert. Sees ‘ Ait. %, In pertinent part, Section 514 of the Soldiers ms ‘and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act (Appendix, infra, cS al pp. 13-14) provides: = bs Q % : B 8 ry ts ‘ . . — See. 514. (1) For the purposes of taxation a . : Ol ak ae ge ns In respect of any person, or of his personal property, income, or gross. income, ‘by’ any’ State, Territory; possession, or politi¢al. sub- division of any of the foregoing, or by the Dis- deemed to have Tost a residence or-domicile in any State, Territory,; possession, er political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or in the _ District. of Columbia, solely by reason of being absent therefrom in compliance with military. or naval orders, or to have acquired & residence possession, or political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or the: District of Columbia, while, and solely by reason of beings so absent. .For the purposes of taxation in respect of the ‘ ; oye ‘ personal property, income, or gross income of any such person by any State, Territory, pos- session, or political subdivégion of any of the foregoing, or the District of Columbia, of which such person isnot a resiflent or in which he is not domiciled, compensation for military or naval sdrvice shall not be deemed income for . . “services performed within, er: from sources within, such State, Territory, possession, political subdivision: or District, and persenal property shall not be deemed to be located or . e . ? e trict of Columbia, such person shall not be. - _ or domicile in, or to have become resident in -or a.res¥ent of, any other State, Territory, | 6 —- : Sea present in or to have @ situs. for taxation in such State, Territori » Posse amen, or political subdivi iston, or district * . , [Emphasis s . . ~~ a bors , supplied.) | De: Tn -short, Section 514 provides, in clear and un-: ambiguous language, that’ When one in the military service is ahsent from his state of domicile i In com- _pliance with, military orders, no state other thay the statesof domicile shall inypose a tax upon his personat, property or income. The italicized clause, providing that’ ‘ ‘personal property shall not be’ deemed to be loeated o or present in or to hav ea situs ° for taxation in such State, Territory, possession, or political subdivision, or district’ an which the - serviceman and his property are présent pursuant ". to his military orders, would seem to be dispositive of this ¢ase. However, the Supreme Court t ef Colorado, look- ’ Ing to the stated Congressional purpose “that i military personnel -* # # should not be stibjected to multiple taxdtion .of personal property’? (S. ‘Rept. 959, 78th Cong., 2d Sess, (Appendix X, infra, p. 16) Dp. and construing “deemed” to mean “pre-. sumed,” held that Section 514 created only a con- _ ditional exemption from personal property taxes, the condition being proof that the state of the ~ Servis ‘gnan’s domicile has levied and collec ‘ted, a _ tax otr his personal] property. The Colorado court assumed that the purpose of the statute was satis- fied if the state in which a serviceman is tempo-- rarily present in.compliance with orders does not ; \ , 8 impose a tax oh personal] property which is already being taxed by the state of his domicile, e = ; . = ‘ x of No such condition appears in the statute. iis fe over, when Congress desired to condition a service- man’s exemption from taxation by a state to which he goes in compliance with ‘orders upon payment of a tax to the state of his residence or domicile, it did so expressly in this same statute. ‘Thus, para- graph (2) of Section 514 specifically provides that the serviceman’s exempfion from payment of loeal “licenses, fees, or excise imposed in res sect . to 9 7 = motor vehicles or the use thereof’? is conditioned “upon his payment of the license, fee, or excise _re- quired‘ by the state of which he is a resdert or in which he is dotniciled. Contrary to the view of the : Colorado court; the condition in paragraph (2) of Section 514 is not a general policy to: be applied to the entire section, but emphasizes, instead, that Congress did not intend to so limit the exemption from taxation which is conterred in ‘para graph (1) of Section 514 involved here. . Moreover, it is quite’ | obvious ¢hat thé condition in paragraph (2) was not’ inserted for reyenue purposes. but rather to insure -that servicemen’s — would” be _ licensed somewhere for- general la} purposes, ei ! Moreover, the decision of the Colorado court disregards the methods adopted by Congress to ‘ eliminate multiple taxation of the personal prop- erty of members of the armed forces. Congress sought tg do this by providing that only the state 2 $2 ON ‘enforcement an L \ & - 7 o | : aN 2 to ; | Gees “of the serviceman’s, permanetit reidence ort . — domicile could tax his personal property. | The Senate Committee on, Military Affairs, *in reporting the 1944 amendment to the Aet which added the specific exemption for personal property?’ taxes stated (App. p..16) ee = Se ee *.* *-The result has been that servicemen find themselves at times subjected to personal- ‘property taxes on-the same preperty in tore -» than one State-during the same ‘alendar year by reason of being moved under orders.’ ‘Thes problem arises largely from the fact that personal property is assessed for tax#@ion on dif- ferent dates by the various states and local -govern- “thents, with the fesitt that & serviceman trans- _ ferred from state to state could be taxed by each, "state in which he held his personal property on the \. assessment date. Congress sought to prevent, this a by: providing that only the state of ‘the service-. man’s permanent residence or domicile can tax his " personal property. In the instant case, for ex-. ample, the decision of the Supreme Court of Colo- rado would prevent Colorado from taxing the petie tioner if he is being taxed by Louisiana, his state’ _ of domicile; ‘but if petitioner is taxed by‘Colorado and is then transferred to another state; the latter could tax him again since Colorado was not his state 2 of domiciles Similarly, servicemen: domiciled in states such as New York Which have no personal. . | property tax could be taxed by each state in which ee renee set ey . & g ~ ¢ : S.- Rept 959, 78th Cong., 2d Sess ] ‘they “and ‘the? multiple taxation referred tfin the Committee \. pretation’ upon it. Onesies ee Report. Only.an application of Sectioh 514. in, accordance with its express terms can: effectuate . e e its purpose, 2. This Court’s decistons niake it abundantly. e clear that exemptions. from taxation expressly es- a z - : , e a . *. bs tablished by Congress for federa® agencies and Instrumentalities will not be Whittled-away by the courts.” It is equally clear that when-Congress has provided such an exemption it will ‘be interpreted’ by this Court:in keepingavith the broad purpose of protecting that which Congress sought to immunize __ from. state taxation.* The Colorado court either : soa eo, oS BR property happened to be on the - assessment day. Thus, the decision below exposes members of the armed Le gr ag very type of*. = ’ felt that those principles were inapplicable, or dis- mye . : e 3 as 27 . . . ees régarded thém when. in effect, it aniended the sfat- utein order to place a,restrictive and narrow inter- ¢ #..» \. This Court has declared that thé Soldiers’ and | penors! Civil Relief Act is to be read with friendly _ eyes\(Le Maistre v. Le fers, ; It **is\always to be liberally. eonstruedsto protect those: Who have been obliged to drop their own: ‘affairs to take up the burdens of theenation”’ - (Boone v. Kightner, 319 U. S. 961,575). The rea- _ * Pittman V..-Home Owners Corp., 308 U.S. 21; Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Co., 314 U. S. 95; Maricopa County vy. Valley Bank, 318 U. S. 357.361; Carson y. Roane-Anderson - Co., 342.U, 8. 232, 3 >. ote * Pittman v. Home Owners Corji., supra; Federal Land Bani: v. Bismayek (o., supra; Carson y. Roanie-Ande rson Co.. supra, : ~ 333. U.S. 1,6), and that - mp oela 10 soning of the Colorado court andthe strained con struction of the statute reached ‘by that court seém not in harmony with’ either the broad purposes of the statute, the terms of the section, or. the appli- Cable principles of statutory construction. | | Having construed the section as it did, the Colo- ” rado court stated that it would not consider the : question of the constitutionality of the seetion’.’ ae. seems beyond question that Section 514 is valid. ' Carson. ¥. Roane-Anderson ( '0., 342 UL S. at 233- 7 Nc ee BEAR See ee : 3. The decision below is\the f st to construe Sec- ‘tion 514. While the amowts involved in such per- sonal property taxes ard rar ‘ly large, the decision below stands as an Lt thorities to imposd similar taxes upon hundreds of thousands of members of the armed forces who are serving elsewhere than in. their states of resi-. _ dence or domicile and who, under the decision, are without protection from multiple taxation. The wstaiit case alone will ‘determine Whether such taxes may be _ass&sed upon more ‘than 2,000 ‘servicemen, who-are teniporarily stationed in the' ’ City aind- County of Denver pursuant to military , orders, as well as upon a considerable number of servicemen stationed at other points in Colorado. _ * We thimk that the decision. inferentially, at least, upholds : the constitutionality. of the provision in so far as it-is given limited application to a serviceman who has paid taxes Army or the Navy. The term‘ military: serv- iee’”, as wsed in this-Act, shall signify Federal service on active duty with any branch of serv- ° vA ————s sé ¥ 19° (50 U.8.04, App.@) 946 ed., See, oe +.) Bee. 2. Nothing contained in this Act shall be | construed to require.the crediting or refundin i mo of any tax in respect of tangibls personal. piop- erty (including license®, fees, or excise im posed in respect of motor vehicles or the use thereof) paid prior to the date of its enact- ment. a ee, tore. S: +50 U.S.C. App’, 1946 ed., See, OT4 note.) Rep. No. 959, 78th Cong., 2d Sess. pp. 1-2% The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom ~ WasTeferred the bill, H: R..4733. to amend sec- tion 5H of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Re- lief Act; having considered the same. submit the following report.thereon; with the. reeom-_ mendation that it do pass. ” o'Phe-purpese of the proposed legislation is to. Clarify the intent of sectién 514 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Cid Relief Act as added by see- tion 17 of the act of October 6, 1942 (56 Stat. . Possession, or Distriet of Columbia of ‘which -. 769, 777). When that provision of law was . added to the act to relieve persons in ‘service - from liability’ of - double taxation by being ° . : . s moved from one'State to another under orders, - it was intended .that it should apply to per- sonal-property taxes as wellas to income taxes. As presently constituted. it primarily affects taxes in respect te income and other taxes hased on residence or domicile, byt it does not prevent the. State of “temporary résidence™ from. taxing‘ tangible personal. property ae- os & °& ~~ ¢ . | te 16 | . p : vs’ ; ; ee 5 tually located in such ‘State so long as the tax _ + does not depend on residence or domicile, . 4 fewStates have taken the position that tangible _ personal property of military personnel who are only- temporarily within théir jurisdiction _ ‘does not acquire a situs for taxation, but it.has been held that ‘section 514 of the act as now Written does not affect the right of a State to ' assess personal-property taxes. on property Within its jurisdiction. The result: has been that servicemen find themselves ‘at times sub- jected to personal-property taxes on the same. property in more than one State during the same calendar year by reason of being. moved under orders. =» sane eee tear eet Your committee considers that the existing law pertaining to State taxation of -the per- sonal property of persons in military service present in the various States in complhance _ With military orders should he clarified : that bs the military personnel concerned should not be “subjected to multiple taxation of’ personal ' property by the various States an® should be’ giventhe same protection as to personal prop- erty taxes as is now provided in respect of in- come taxes, — | | * ¢ ~ “ eee 7 ae > : . > -