People ex rel. Durand-Ruel v. Wells
New York Supreme Court
Cebtioeaeis to review assessments against the relators for capital invested in business in this State.
1Opinion of the CourtLeventritt, J.
I am of the opinion that the relators are continuously and permanently doing business in this State and that they are therefore taxable as for capital invested in this State on the amount of merchandise on hand. The question of permanency and continuity is primarily one of intent. Each cas'e must be considered on its own facts, and a circumstance quite determinative of intent *145m one case may prove secondary in another. If these cases presented simply the bald question of merchandise sent into this jurisdiction for sale this decision would probably have to be controlled by such" cases as People…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- The Parker Mills v. . the Commissioners of TaxesNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- People Ex Rel. Armstrong Cork Co. v. . BarkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
- People ex rel. Crane Co. v. FeitnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Coit v. GoodhartAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- People ex rel. Reversible Collar Co. v. FeitnerNew York Supreme Court · 1900
3Cited by4 opinions
- People ex rel. A.J. Tower Company v. WellsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
- Pittsburg & Shawmut Coal Co. v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1922
- People Ex Rel. Farcy & Oppenheim Co. v. WellsNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- People ex rel. Farcy & Oppenheim Co. v. WellsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905