Mills v. State Board of Equalization

Mr. Justice Angstman:

I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion in condemning the surtax, but dissent from the result reached as to the other provisions of Chapter 40, Laws of the Extraordinary Session of the Twenty-third Legislative Assembly.

For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in O’Connell v. State Board of Equalization, 95 Mont. 91, 25 Pac. (2d.) 114, I think the entire Aet is unconstitutional as unreasonably discriminatory in favor of corporations and against individuals. To say that an income tax is not a tax on property does not answer this question. There must…