State Tax Commission v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey

Sloan, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from an order of the Baltimore City Court reversing an order of the State Tax Commission which had refused an application of the Standard Oil Company for a manufacturer’s exemption of a job printing plant which it was operating in Baltimore City. By Section- 7, Subsection 23, of Article 81 of the Code, 1939, the county commissioners of any county and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City are authorized to exempt from city and county taxes the “Tools (in-including mechanical tools), implements, whether worked ⁶³⁹ by hand, steam or other motive power, machinery, manufacturing apparatus or engines used in manufacturing, whether temporarily idle or not” provided the exemption be so declared by resolution or ordinance. And by Subsection 24, may be extended to “Raw materials on hand and manufactured products in the hands of the manufacturer.” An Act of like import, applicable to Baltimore City is contained in Article 4, Section 6, Subsection 28 (c) of the Code of Public Local Laws, 1930, subtitle “Abatements to Encourage Manufacturers,” Baltimore City Charter-(1938), p. 58.

In pursuance of the authority of these Code provisions, the Mayor and City Council passed an ordinance No. 140, Baltimore City Code (1927), Art. 46, Sec. 80, directing the Appeal Tax Court to abate any and all personal taxes “of any individual, firm or corporation, actually engaged in the business of manufacturing articles of commerce in the City of Baltimore,” but excepted certain businesses from the benefit of the exemption, among them any machinery, etc., “used in the preparation, printing or issuing, by the printers or publishers thereof, of any daily journal or other periodical publication.” The exceptions did not include job printing establishments, and the only logical conclusion is that to omit them does not mean to include them in the exceptions. The State Tax Commission and this court have so interpreted it, and have said that the machinery, etc., of job printers are exempt from taxation. Rowe Co. v. Tax Commission, 149 Md. 251, 261 , 131 A. 509 ; American Newspapers v. Tax Commission, 174 Md. 56 , 197 A. 574 . Some years later, in 1918, the Mayor and City Council passed Ordinance No. 482, which did not repeal any of the provisions of Ordinance No. 140, but prescribed the procedure, which had not been provided for by Ordinance No. 140, whereby manufacturers might avail themselves of the benefits of the charter power and the earlier ordinance.

The only material change, worthy of note in ⁶⁴⁰ this case, was, “In case any person, firm or corporation engaged in manufacturing in Baltimore City shall also be engaged in the business of a jobber, or wholesaler or retail merchant, in Baltimore City, nothing in this section shall be construed to exempt the personal property other than goods of his own manufacture, used in connection with said business of jobber or wholesale or retail merchant.” It is generally declared that these tax exemption statutes are to be strictly construed. Broadbent Mantel Co. v. Baltimore, 134 Md. 90 , 106 A. 250 , and cases there cited. But to this it might be added, that they are to be fairly construed, that is, so as tp give expression to the legislative intent and purpose. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Hanover Shirt Co., 168 Md. 174, 178 , 177 A. 160 ; Cooley on Taxation, 4th Ed. Sec. 674. ' The City’s interpretation of the purpose and intent of its charter power, and it might properly be said of any such statutes, as expressed in Ordinance No. 462, is “In order to encourage the growth and development of manufacturing industries in Baltimore City and thereby in the judgment of the Mayor and City Council, to promote the general welfare of the city * * * exempt from taxation for all ordinary municipal purposes,” the tools, machinery, and