CTA Case No. 1931 (Decision)

-- Jbl !C O.P' TRE PHILlf'l: 1f\l ' COURT OF TAX PPJil.A.IA QUEZON CITY I �, c . ZA -_. T,l, o, .T\ Cr.o � O. 193 Peti t io .ter , v rst X- � - - .. ..... :( . c l..' I I 0I p titl l'l� r 0. tld :r 0'!1 a cis on f e- te do yinry nc 11 tion ,.. t 965 daf~ c HC' �:...,o.._- t<> .. � C!$SS ent 0 2, 69 . 0, co~put,d as fol o s: rom t.1e f co ener t..l � � � � .....7, �99 . 96 d e ui r � � � 950. 00 � � � � J , ~JO . O~ ����� , ~20 . 00 � ��� � �� 2.5 . 00 ������� 120 ~_Q_ p r fie 5 � � � � � � � 4 ('. ')3 �7 . ..... ' ,. . . . . �� ����� ou ���� � 63 � t to � ru� r T ����� I .:;~ � ����

- D.l-:1 I O. - c�:r c. P~ �TO. 193 2 !J titioner � s an s stant o J.c i t or Ge ' eral , l 'icc , ... the Solic1 �ol' Ge� eral , -1 i l a . In . rch , ' 19.6'7 p-titio r ceiv .~.. 0 spo~,den t � s f ce -ud�i t Shea n d sses s ent o. 25- - 0649961 do "' nd pay en t 2, r pr se tin :p tit "ma r � s 965 e:f'ici c. inc oe t d i t I�- .. s t due t here n . The de c .enc n o e t. ass ss- . en t is a se d ch ~ 1 n r ' s � d .-red .o ~l ry of f- 7, 499 . 96 a f. . stant So 1 :t tor Gene r a � ~ ArCh v' 1967 , potitiOfl ! COrt Sted the S :s - t in � ue s tion ru1 � re ue ted respor.dcnt to can el the s- e c u e the ri 1 nd .... j ni �n d c - p nc:"t on i ted o Ass st t nol cit~ s G ~ er y , ' public Act �. � L 6 '~ , w\i c �pro- vi 4 s as ollows: S 1,T0 7 1 � � � � � � � � � T'JVil _.c �' <>1 f S sur lied .) The other ito c nf oe 1u.c ion fro11 ,tOti ti e � s ro~~ reo e were n t q' s .i ned bv f t t on r n t e . p e-:>1 und , t E::r fore , e c on .. _ci !" tl1e as un- i~ 33

D ~C IO ~ � C A CASE li O. 19 1 3 di puted. e on y is sue -, t herefor , to lB r solved in this cas s w t her or not petitioner ' s un eclar d s lary ~ ss stant olicitor Gen ra is xe pt ro~ inco e t x im os by the ational Internal R venue ode der the p_ovi 1 ns of epubli ct o. 4360, spondent contends th t etitioner is not exe 11pt 1 r "> inco e tax becaus exemption fro tax ti n s a J tter o leg lativ race; tax xemp tion canno t b presumed but ust be r an ted under a clear .an � te o th la ; epublic P. ct o. 4360 does not mak e itioner a j dge wit in tho purview o rticle VIII, S ctio 9 o t he Consti!"' t i t n oft e P 1 .P1in s, anJ that terti n 1 or the pr hibi t � n of t he dirdnutio of S( r es and/cr co .:~ pensct ion of judges is to mai~tain ju 1- J.- � ci 1 independence and thdt reason doe~app ly to t e petitioner who ho du1g a position in th e cut va d p rtm nt th overru ent; an t ord "privileg s 11 in Republic Ac t l o. t.-360 could ean acts, i~munities and preprogat ives which p ti- tioner could enj y as t hat of judges, but not he pr..;.,vi e of x . ption from in o. tax. etitioner v gorously obj cted to the c n- t ntion of respondent an~ cl 1 s th t re pendent's 1965 de ici n c � co e t ex ass s s nent of �2,869 . 02 is illegal and con r to t he ovis ons f t:' c- i~ .� 3 4

Dri I ,1IOl - T: CAs�~ 0.. 19 l tion 1, publ. c Jet ! o . 4360., ~!lP~a ; t he pr vilag s of j d es under t e co titution n.clude exemption fro n e trut der th doctr e laid down by the upreme rt in the Per ecto nd Endencia- J:tgo case ; the me privileges o � t : � �xemp ion were extended to et tioner by sa d publ �c ct � 4)60 cons dermr . the explan t r y notE t the bill and he ftistor c� background of the ; awi and the tax- exe tion grunted by said law wa s t of egislativ grac � Our C r stitution provides in rti 1 VIII , S ction 9, as follows: The c st it�� tional ..date pro i"' s tNt the me~th~a:s of 'th Sypreme Court and ~.11 . judges Qf l!,ll:Bll,or .cou.J:t.tc; 11 hall r c !v such co.apens tion sa i d b w, which sha n t be di inished d rin t h ir continu e n ice . ' Intecs o r cto v. eer, o. '11 . No. 1- '�� 35

DECISIO - CTA C SE �0. 1931 I 23~8, �eb uary 27 , 1950 (85 Ph � 552) , t qu r ly presented to t pre e Court is wheth r or not t he i ~osi t ion of an inc o~ t upo t he s lary o ustice r gorio Perfecto 1n 1946 unt to a iminu t on hi~ salar � Eight ~ustie s of the :up.rern Court uphold t * a a.f ir ativ vi w w 1 tw j us t ces of the s e court d1ss nted . cursor read ~g of the constit 1tional provi- s ons in ques� ion do s not explicitly grant exe p- t on rom inc t ax on th s&lari s Oi ju tices an judges bec<..use the non..pay ther o �.s not er privi eg bu t a tasic li .ita ion upon 1 gisl tive or xecutirG o.ct on .i a ur� o . Conse quent ., , we cal"'..not subscri 'J to tho vie-w u ... vane� d by th(-) eti t on l' in t ' is ca s tn t ttby � t k ng :!nto ccount the pr�v e enunciated ther in , Congr ss co . enced grant'n _ tax un ty to a few le ted subj cts . 11 ( Pe t t 1 n ' s ife o � , p . 3 , C r e c. , p . 64 . ) t h contrar.. , in t he P r :~cto case our upre ourt s id: .. r pr . vil e . The i port and signil icunce 0 the dec sion r th ' u re Court on this p �lt is clearly stated in th langu g of th Court ill the P r ect cas t ' as fall s: ' 36

DBCISIO} � CT' CASE NO. 193 . 6 \\ \ Judges would indee "The EJX :J.n tt9!l of tho judiqi&l co11 ensatiou fJ;Qtn. Ladu~tioo is not' in anY true pans~ a stat;itY a .P~~vileg~ or exe~ptinn . I t. ~s essen~ t ia ly ang Pt,inarily Q0111Qon.- cS oh t ion based upQ~ valtJ.ab!~ ratign. ibe covenant slg on th part of th r overn- ent is a guarant y whose ulfill ent is as uch a part of t h e con si '"l era tion agreed as is t he . oney alary . The ur dert�king has its wn par- ticul r va ue to t he oj_ti.zans in securing the independence of the judiciary in crisis; a. d the establishment f the eompens tion u on a per an nt fou 1da tion whereby jud�cia l preferment ma be prudently accepted by those who are qualified by talent , lmow- . dge , integrity and capac- ity, but ar not ,possessed f su h . privr te fort ne as to make an a... sured salary en b � ~ ct o personal concern. On the oth r 1and , the e � be:r of the jtdioi relin- quish the_r p siti n at the b , ith all its profess ion- al e olu ents , sever their oonneetibn with heir c iantc ; and dedicate th m.selves ex- clusively to the di~ char e . ~e' . On'rnfi$1 rdtl;,ie': their high office. So, it i' 37

D..CioiO~~ - CTA C S~ O. 1931 7 is irre utc.ble� t hat the tn%1-tt- ?nty ag insy 1 ~:egugtiqn o! 2~JfJr x }'h: tng ,imno~ :t. ;tion � . f .s :ta::s. j*s ~Ot ?ill .e�em:Rl!~~ ft211 � ,tsgcat:lgn in .the �ens~ o.{ f.ree dom ftom ice to wqigb .a burgal) o r1~S!U,.-::Y� O'ihets .sr e 1'he exe1apvion or � pub c purp se or ' valid consi oration is .e.rely a no�ninal ex.m,?tion , since the va d n.nd full cons:fdsration or tLe publ.tc purpose promoted ts received in the place of the tax. IJ.beory and raetice of ax~ tion (1900) D� � '�'el es, � 54 . u (Gordy v. Denni M � 939 5 atl . p . 2d l..l ies , p . o; underscoring sup.. li d. � In the i t of the tr.tj.o� d'i c:f. a in the above quoted dee. s on o t!1.g upre� o Cou.rt , we need not stre+;ch o r llc g . nt"'.tion to disu;1�ee 'tvith the vi rs and co .clus �.on of p t t.L )nr +hc... t Article III , f:>e tion / , 01 our Cons t t ut..:.on , ~u r: , is a. pr i v lege f t n.x e E.r ,lr-~ tion r. .. n ted to justices of the �Supra e Court an to a. 1 ~jua ges of inf rior courts and , th r fore , the s id t~x exe uption Nay be e]ttende y Con . e ss to a fa~ selected subj cts of their bount � �~ constitution~ provisi~n s in question, ar . r , being a gr timl, are basic 11nitat ons and p:r htbiti.ons upon le islati e T' exec.uti ve � cti n decreasing r di . inis ing tne salaries of judicial o ficials uring t e r continuance ll1 fice . an eonclt .:;ions on t ., i point wer e r i te:ra ted by i' ' 3 8

- DECISIOH ... CTA C ~ O. 1931 8 our uprema Cairt in the ce es of dndencia and Jugo v . David , ' . i . o � L- 63 5'5 and. 6356 , Au � 31 , 1953 ; 93 Phil . 699 , 704, 706 , the pertinent po.rt .on of which r ead as J.Ollo\llsl A already state oon s 1t'uing and pulying the a bove con stitution- l pr vision, we he .d in the Per� c to c a s tha. t .JU ici.al o . icet::t a.re exqmut fto:n the Ravm~n:to;f: 1n- on. co:ne...t.ax :the i.r s ala~ies ; be~ aL't S the col lection ther of by the uov- ern cnt was a deer .;.S or i.in tion of their salaries during their con- t inuance in of lc~, a ,thtut' ~h;L~h :it? 0 Sl ol .� it d b the onst . .. 0' .. ~1 X X X X X� X X X � � � In ot er words, or reasons o. public p licy and public in t er stt14 may j us t if i � b l y co n ~citizen rovi s i on r by tuti na p .t.. ~ 39

- DECISIO 1 - CT.f CAS0 NO . 1931 9 f th vupre, e Court in t he Pe rfe c to d -tdenci - Jug c;_ s s , s,uura , it is abundan tly cle � r t hat t he - ~D~ltltg.tiop _ 1 lU;:ovisions pttohibiting tmd lir i ti .g the po,ver of the legis a t i ve and exec utive departi ents of the govarn ant from reducing the salaries of justices and ~.11 judges o inferior courts , which ar bas d on pu lie: pol cy and ublic interest, can not jud.1c.iously be equate with the ~tatuto;n~ proy~ ion~ conta ed ;Ln Se ction , .. epublic Act r � 436 0, granting t o th'l Fir s t s sistan t Solicit r Gener al c.nd ~ ssista.nt oljeitors General th sa e privil ~ge a s t hose prescr bed for� Judges of Cot: rts of i.rst Instenca . In the first place , the ~ ~..;..lll~~~;;l;.-ll;;Or:;..;o~"..'l.OiTl.:::;.;s.~l.:;;.:o. ~J.2�. in que stion limi t-L!lSi ~~~~ th diminution o � s .r..laries of ju i c.i� 1 o fici a s while the Jljp.:tutot,Y urov�s1Qn� r;.rM t privilerr s to non- judicial ofi' i cia s . In the second place , the tar�ns limitat ion u pon and pro.. hibi ti against la islative or execut ve action on t l e constitution mandate used by the Supre '~ 40

D .CISIOfJ ... " CTA CASB NO . 1931 10 Court in th Pe l' "acto and ndenoin. Jugo oases are opposed and incompatible w th the words e:tnnt Q ativiljggs en t 1onad in th stat tory :pr visions . In short , a justice or ~jud ge does not exactly ask for exempt l on from the inca~ tax s a privilege bee� use it i s a ready attached to . 'his off i ce i.Vhile the gr ar1tee s or the exe ,Jp tion ar�e the bcnefic j.u 'ies f legi slative gro.ce . In t e - third place , if Congress L"1tende d to :h1ple an the constitution 1 pr v isions b died in Section , .t�:rtic e VII , or our Const i tution , as envis ioned e~..d concluded in Peti t ioner ' s "fem .r....ndum , ,.Jhy is 1 t t h<.. t Congress f ailed to r~ke a .c lear r1an:tfes ta. t1on f i ts p licy and i n tention either in t he Explanat rY ~ote to th bil l , "W 'licll be arne i�~:: publie Act No . 4,36u, or in the cong:ressiom:;,l delib~ra tions t hereof'? And fin ally, "':e ong:res s \fere influ:anced by t hlll decisions of' t he Supreme ""ourt in the pr ac- tical result or end-e f ect of t he erfecto and lndencia- Jugo c a ses, hold ing thc.;. t ju 'leia l of- f.cia l s are not subject to inco e tax on their s a larie s bee .: se t l1at woul d m n.� a �-nuni t i on of judicial co. pensa tion, wh y is it th~:;(. t Congress. fail d to grant the tax ex 11p tion in clear and un� m s t ' k a ble lang11 .,.e a don by 1 t in th"' follow- ing .rep1 blic J>.cts , to wit: L � �Lepubl c Act N � 35'. � , Grantinr to any par n , partnership , Il~ ' 41�'

r l~.cx�~I .~ CT Ito " N � 1 31 11 2. 12 . 1 e . h~irs i' to r .c i .;.. cution an 1ct ~�) � 21 o. s~c . 1. t o. th c:-fi~ ~-r~ s ��� ny ~ � :~2 i . . �,C . 1 � a ta:rpn:v,_,r f'::ron tl 13 0 . ~~ 42

.I\JlOl:t � CT CA. , ;10. 1931, li .~ 43 !

. JCl' I Ot c (;I' ,, ,i.J .!. o. p pt l ' c c . o . 7�.:8 . ':'ltle ;:.a�t r, . .IY~D":lfi t.s . � nd ~ !rlay as n- ,� :. r,loo .1. '"''X'' i~;t �ux r'undO'd . 1 .. '-!) � .... ::; - ~ ;, '1 ' t . B. sub- t1u"' .::h::lll I' 4 4

~o . 1931 14 ,.. ;. et o. 1373. � �� � �� o�C . � � 1. ,, I 45 ''

D lS!ON .... C C SE 1~0 . 1:931 The for oin R p"blie ets granting taX� x � mptions, 'Which w r pick d at rando- by thi Court ,. el arly a !>W yo: d doubt that, 1 our la ... ing to gr �t t - x pt.ons ts of 1 -;:.,1 l tiv � ac t the id. ran of tax- �npt1ons .. ust b cleo::-; emphatic, l.mmistal't.able , n r p:r<!!s.l!nt th urrendGt' of th.J3 ov ra1gn t 1 ow r or h Stt.t .. in f vor t rante .S�. n... C'"�o.not "c s 1 of E-:!etion 1, orublie c:t o. 360, ,d Rpit the pret 1) ions nd. pro� t stat1ons to tha contrary . By 1nvoking t.le � legislative history ana Ollltion of wb. i .s known a E p bl1c ~ct llo . 4 60, u a., petition r clai. tl. t �r~spo a. nt cO!l ot ow pract1c lly r pudiaf~ l c� la nd d n � tion :tro the inco a tax to the officials cted thrsbyn on the theory h t th pr1vileg o on� d1 .�. ition o s lary or of rst I st c wa el arly h l to c~.pr~h n ity, followin th P ~ rf ct0 v. !e r n ens �.. 'lD 46 '

193 1 16 , CT � r c. � 67.,) If t t .as the 1 sloti:tr t nt � t , Con r �s eaa.U. hav easily st t d -o in R... ;Ubl1c )6G t b -1 r1 s or t � 'ol1ci tor - ral , � r t slate t 'olio. to n -:ra , no .bG s-.,istant ctol1nito:rs Gen.or l shall -t bo eor..siti r d � s ineoma of or- .t(l s.c~1d ic1als for � urpo o of th inco.rm ta � A t ypical :l.slativ p.olicy of � non...di nution. ot 1ncom 1s found- in iWI. t1 lll :')2 o n pubJ.io e o. 1400 . 1 1 provid s' ~l r i 0 r isput � tso vo~ th t t h3 e~ - stitut 'onal "anda on no - d ...i tion of t. cy s l � ri o � udici ff'i ls , ��:.ich i n rr ~c. t r . - 11 v ~ tb _m f m t bu or ! .neon t "'"' 1 . a: ... s 1 lY and � o 'l>J b rs of t ou t nd all .uch . 11 r tion xcluc o her by 1 plic - io � 1s no ootrov r y t ur l ... ki 1th th roval of t if x � p t c ti n fro o ord1nnr. oblig t1on j) . 47 I '

o. 1931 11 at p t ng t s o h1 1 eom � nt ot 1~ia1 or dy of offiei ls who r � not b rs of the ;.Jupr e Court , nnd ju e s of in r1or courts or consti tutlon 1 officials ., o n not ~ lf4ly el 1 �x mption t r o 1 _po . d b . th I�: tio al Int :r nal R venu� Co on the constitutional andnt of non- diminu... tio � of al ��ri s unl of tax x :pt :ton i s sp eifie nd el ur b C"'U �X! JP- t1on from ta..~at1oh , w:.~icll is in d~~?ro1!ll u t1on o.f t ov 1! 1 n pow r of th S.tt\tG to t .. it.:) not t vor d is ov r pr snm a. It is w ll- st bl shod j uri prud<lnce 1n vhi. country and th_ Uttlted Stato t wh our 1ncom~~ a� l � s nra p tt'lrn d, th t � xem - tion f:ro. tax t ion 1s co stru st ictly ag 1nst li t ayar and in :tavor of .ha tax ng pcrwer. Thus , in tne easa of 'S. ftodri u z, I.nc , v. The CoU �etor of I:nt l:'nal Re:venue nd th Court ot . 'le pp als , G. H. No. t ...2Jo4-1, ro ulgated on ltll1 31 , 1969 t our ~� u:pr 1rl Court , following lo11g l1n of pr � c.. d nts, held as .followst (lt) �� e .o i s ioner of Int~rnal n venue vs . u rr ro, r 20812, vept . 2 , 1967, 21 SCR 180 , 163, nd t . -� rou e sea th!lrein cited . � . i~ " 4 8

1(11 O. ~ 931 C� tS � on� iJltJ t favor il1 eit1ng ..>hilippin Gut..r nt.y ~o . �� Ccm- (() ( 22074, vept . ' , 1 �5 ~ . .; t r , !n � fl� � e�c � Com... , ....~1 41, vet � , 196 , 1 l . '"6 , �'7 1.

No � .931 19 mph tie eo :\J r 50 .

D"!CIGI O?i ... CT C � E r 0 � 1 ~.3 l n bid to bol s -r t t1 pt'Clpos ition that th eon- tituti onnl ....andc. to � f r cm - di mim.tt1on of a .la:ri or ot ..)upr ~. Cour t j s �t.- , l J all Judg in- r-io court is not ex lu tva n all- �~ braci t p titio 1er ar U:<! d, und \'!1 t uota: � caus o h bold �~s r 1o. t h t t Court Iiii '�: 5' 1

� D .CISIOH ,... CT . CASE ~ O. �1931 21 o fax ppeal _ and ot h r speci l court . ar !"" ttSLd- lUlnt�tEAt1ve tr fbunals inv .sted with quasi- judicial powers ana t he nature of w ose functions aoes not per tain t o the ,jud:lc i 1 departm ntn and , ntheir judges wou.ld be di qualified f;rom t e pr vile.g f non ~ dL inu t ~on of th ir s a aries by t ax axe pt on , tt t s quite barrussing for th<l jud ges of th s Court t o� O,ec de the que .stion !1: re� at i ssue con� s ider:tng tlleir supposed involve ent in the reoolu- tion the r eof . Be that as it ay , we c anno t shirk ro ur sworn dutt ev n if' the -par t y or parties to be acted b he deci sion r fr iends of' the Couxt. .B rrowing rot.1 the la.ngt age of the 'upr e. e Court in the Perfecto case and paraJh!.�asing the 1 t ter part t hereo ,. " sti 1 t .., s thE' outc-or.1e in- . i rectl r .., ff' ec ts "11 the . e:~ber s of th<; Court , on- sideration of th ~ter is n t withou t g fea t u r e . Yet adjudlcntion may not e declined , b .causa {a) vJe are no t legally di squalifie d ; (b ) jurisdi ction ay not bA ren unc e , 11 as it is th pet ti ner who a pealed t o th. s Court , and there is no other t ibunal. to ~v~hich the e cision o:f tho responden t Co issioner or Int ernal Re v. nue m y b r :ferr d; (c) t � � Supreme Cour t has decided a oasa i n n;arl- c<zu;:Ha.; d (d) the status of the ax Cour t, wheth r it is an ad in str ative tribun 1 or jud o � a ,body , l s reneate 1y b en de i ded y our oupr e c_ lrt . .. 52

- -- C SIO CTA C '<' O. 93 22 Af te r P ssing on th 1ssu that th constitu- tion 1 andat e bodled n r ticle VIII, ction 9, can onl be av iled ersonally by ju ntieo �or th upr e e ourt an al jud es of inf r!or� cour ts, pet tionar c ai s �.h t th 'ol1ci tor n... - ral , irst si stant ool citor ne r . 1 , and s is tant o-olic1t rho> ~ -~ 1 AP in th c te ry of jud e cause t hey ar p rfor in quasi- judici unct o s ik jJ.dges of the sp cial courts en- tioned above , who ar~ ma bers o istrative trib l s . o s qu n t y , t � s r u d t h t tl cons t tutior1 dat o non� d ui nut on of sa rie of judge~ is likewi e applicabl to p ti- tion r an otl r of . i c i ls s i 1 ar y si uat caus t or d "pr vil es " fo' nd in ction 1, public ct o. 4360 and statutes of s. i ar 1 port grant d th 1 ity fr p ent of us b inco e t i posed by th ... c ax c n ress. Const nci o C star1 d who sponsored ouse ill o. 1?5 ere tinrr th ax Court s id in his spo sorship spe ch on ay 3, 1954 th t "llous � o. 75 s or j_ts purpos the r . . i a r ular Court of T ) :i?.t- al It ( 0 gr ssio al �ord , Th rd Con res th ublic, irst ss on, 1 . , No . 65 , p. 2 ; s �tiontejo ,

- -- DRCISIO l � CTJ C SE NO . 1931 23 Cou rt of J.ax pp als ct ot t ed , pp . 179� 182 . ) In e l . to 1 terp tion b the n r ss iosdado acapa al, Cast �1eda, , i.n c nson n e w th h s pr vious answers re a tive t t o r of ax P~ ls created by tl at Fr-s... i ent u r 0 u ar cu tlv Order o. ltOl- ' rep i d o lo : rst a , I oub It s cl r , ther for , :f ro. t h .xplan tory 0 to the bil n d th d1 cussions ong th t th Court of ls 1 a r ular court d part th j die al branch f th~ ov r ent . n d tho Supra e t sust in this vie 1 in th cas e of Urs 1 v. C urt o ax p .eals, et al ., �� s . - 10 23 d L- 10355, pril 26 , 1 57 ; 101 hi � 211 , Jhen it held , mon oth rs as f llo �!s a (2)tt � � � to h and decid d"lin i strativ .y . " ( "x cut ve Ord � to . 40 _.~..~. , se s o 1951. ) !~ 54

- - DECISIO - CTA C SE 0- 1931 a ere a.t d by .rl publie Aot No.� 1125 i s a part o . th judi cial s s em eSU'i1ably t act onl y on prot ests of .pr i va.te persons advq sely affected by the tax , us t o. s , or assess ent . The sa e ruling betw en the s w e parties as iterated by th .;upr � Court in G�� o. rJ...lOl65 , pro ulg ted on Augu�st 30, 1957. Wllile i t s tr ue t he.t the ax Court pass.es upo.n aru 1nis - tra:tive decisbns , ou r SUpreme C urt h ld t hat the ourt o Tax App als is .... judicial , dy. � � � rJ Petit ioner � s theory that tho gr ant of 'pr vil ge Qf a Jud a .of "'irst Instanco 11 inc udes by i p i ca-. t ion tho con t i tutio al a.ndate f non-mi � inution i' 55

D CI I CT ~ S 1 O. 19 1 25 0 10 e b c us r posi tio re- I qu� r s th e e i qua. - jt jci 1 unct on , f Qe it to st at t h t our tr i nal a cl r �n p in and un uiv a guage th� t Thus , in the c s of ntonio � loble .i s v. aud o �eh , nd .afa 1 � a u. �� � L- 28790, pri 29 , 1 68 , ou Sup e ourt p s s ing pon he estion as tl th n ture 0 et ti :mer ' s ctior , t judi e ial or x - ecut ve,. held ol l ows: /' 56

SIO - CT A CA B O. 1931 26 T1e non-di inut . on o. t h e laries o ~ e�J- bero::> . th pre e Co"Tt and all j1d ges of in erior c ur e"Jlbod ed in t c e� �rir., Se ct'� on 9, 0 o r on tit .:. t on, �rheth r w c 11 �t "r ht ' r a 1priv is n t er ly & pa r.-- s .1 !::\ 1 e e Yih 'ch can b tr ns _tted by ac t 0~ Co grgss , but a basic 1 at i u. n le i s a ".�. . e or xecutiv act on i.np~ d � n th pu t l n r st e r cto c a e , 'lP . ), lm1..e s th s tntory grat t 0 t Xt:~ t'l.Jti n le;.ves no roo of doubt s t o it te pr tat ion. r;,v~".n a st ut �nt t .. exc pt ncan onl b a uil o o by the gr t nd nob dy lse ex- t cases h r c the st tutory r t 'tself includ or r fe s to another st tutory grant t c;. e 1pt h ch l acopted b it. ,! I 57

D ~CI"'IOl ... CTA CAS o. 1931 27 1a~Qme _Qf the lan9PWDO:t . ~9-:-'P.tm~d. fQ:t J!Ul'PO.�S:;! _of Jfl~ J.n90fi:)~ t~l. � u � � � � The p rtinent Cong es� sional Re cord o th pr ceedings held during the consid ration of the bill whlch(~q.t t' b~c me ~public Act IJo . aaa333 , }goe.s .not .Q..b.Qli th~t, Coneres�� .� intendeg . �o . Q;;s:errrot if4lQ inQc:o[Qmef:.X::!il! t o;f wne;rs :frgm the pamen t ax on ti�e p,rogaegs of tbe sa].g o;f 1i. .~it p;.:o,ne.t:ti�� lihr:n th~_PMLQ J:r ;Qij.~d ;i.n goyeriv'ent bonds !sgau~g Y.T.i� det.. the �ai{j,.l.aw� � �. � (l.l . Rodriguez, Inc. v . '.l'ne vo lect r of In .ornal Rev nue and tha Gm r t of .. ~"<: 1 PSJe als , supra ,.} .A controv~rsy , ~hlch is .1D PJ!J:;b e!Jg:ag.._w:tth the case � bar , w:�s decid d by the Circui t Collrt of t 1e n1 ted States for t te Aiddl,e Di.s trict of Tennessee in favor o the taxp yer . T.ae ..,., � .,upr. me C ur-t reversed the d<3eision of the lower cour t in the oa.se entitl d P�� Pickard v. The ' ~t Tennessee , Virg n :La and Georgia .. ailroad Co - pany., 130 u. s. 637�642, 32 i:,a:vr , l:~ . t05l- 053 , und r the following fact ; nli~ is a suit to enjoin the col action of certa n taxes for he years 1883 ana 188lt, as sessed by th Board of Railroad Tax �ssessors of Tennessee against -the property of the comp ainant , th 'a.st Tennessee, Virginia and Georgi Eailroad Com- pany. The p:r perty ormerly belonged t the c ncinn ti, cu~. b rland Gap and (8 ~Consideration o House Bill ~o . 2003 , t.:ongra - sional \eoord 12~,Ho1u9s4e8 o f Repre s ent at ive s , Vol. III, os . et s eq, 1- 9, J ne 1 , P� 323 , 1� . 58

o. 93 28 i lroa Compan ; and t h. d by th bi s t hat w ilst h l d by t h t x npt ro t ,xat ion, nd t hut such x _ tion ha a cco ~ p ied i t � t t r ....n f e r t o th_ c - pl i n t . T at co p~y was neorpo r a� t d by on .~c t f 1 e Legisl a t u r of Tennes s , pa s d .ove b r 18, 1853. othe r th n s t c Act provided tl t h neve r t h c o pan:y sh;u.ld fl, v c pl te d its o f r o..1 C r . d ap t th t1 s t T nn sse V 1' - g nia Rail r oad , r to the s .lther, e, i t should b Ut!d r y lin of th "h v 1 th ights d rivi_ege " conferred y i ts ch rt r fc a e riod o ni n t - ine y rs . C.cts of Tenn., 1853- 4 , h� p . 30 .3 E. ) It i so de - elo.r d that th/1!> c'J:npan sh ulJ b v s e , exc pt as other is nrovid b � _ts c...: r�:..er , �i �h 11 't "".. the r hts, pow r pr1vile e , an ubject to 11 the r s trictions and lla il . t e - , of t h a s vi .1 ousvil �ail- d G 11pany. � � � � vr thc da c _.. i on f t heCjr cu i t Cour t , t it d ctates . u t oo into �ccount t hat at :"\ is ot �n i se f tran f r � bte ss . so d clared in expr es s t er s or s c1e r dun istaka 1 ~s t 1 ave n o doub of the pt~ r one sl-ture; 1 unity f!'O": t .� o.t on :L per co on' -:;:, c1 incapable of tr"' sfor itho t expre s. st uto y d re ction; . nd the t e r 'pr vi l e esn h 1 . d in s c ses 0 i n c u ~ 'n m!"l�1 y bu Jnly wr r otn r pT.)V ;;)ions n_ t-he \tnt r� gr ant Jl V g ven s uch ' 1e:mi1 > to it� J, h s r~r � t wi 11 no t be s o c '1 5 trued . . <J C01!C us on f 1!' 59

o. 193 29 t h u. � >upr Co t re now part 0 . our stab- 1 she 1 ll ur:spr donee hi h w< succinct y reit rat in th c s a 0 .:.:1. l1 dri u z, c. , � r, ~ ;L. e . �ion o"' th tPr. 1priv le e. I inv lvi g i un ty t atio is a c "" se of irst i l r s �on in t is j r st iction , will se 1 5 a e no fu a in di posin. th pri - cip . n th.i.s c b lV . ' thP 0 sion he ... 'uprom c ur h Jickard Cc se , � <:) . s p a, j. t �a ld . r l! l~ 60

-- D ;CI IO - CT� CAS iO . 931 30 is l' 61

o. 1931 31 he court th- t m- ta.at on J t ass to r up n t ... of t he e~ the de c ~ec r nor d tro ..:.,;~lt by the co )' ny (rm..: ers In 1965 Dl1(1. 19�"6 , J ,.~-itioner cla ....s t1~ r s_on~tnt r9fUPu d ~o her and to i1st i.:~orn t- x p es on :.he ��~s � s th9 ~.~ the 1' s �~ rie , l i ,judge.., o! the ourtn )f �'~ rst In~ ':;nnce, � e tax- e::e ...Jt �lld.er . e u:.-lic -Ct ;:Jo . 4360 . -~:1 e~:..-'Tiin�t � on of' t :1e 1965 ir~corre tax retu!' . ( - _.,.. \JL.. _ ~~ . ) _hotr" ' 4 �. 1 :'01' tl u ~ L:!OUnt sc.lii - ~7 roce v .. c -'Y :1 � r m t ..;; G 'le:: i.-'s � clo�,; _1"'~ c:;�~er:pt i 1 �f . ��o .r..(.'/I . f '... .!nl v r: ,_it:/ l1 �.a of the .1 : ,i y . :::or.:.::z~q te:;;~tl../ , t_ e ~)ure u .J. In o n<; 1 avenue . n sh rt , the r � � ) us ot. � :1g o do �ri th et. ioner ' in �orne i' . 6 2

J c.r I r ... 'X � v Lh-;- HO , 1931 32 us Assistan�t r.> ol�i c:...tor O~neral �whicl . \:las not declared l. Ol' i ncome t ux pur poses.� he question,. 4360 vJ~s r e �er �p,.q.,.sso,r.,~,~.�~�. o...~.r:on 1""-''Y ..�,.e~s po ndent, i .n p . 4-2 , r r(t"'tt.. o ~ } shot'l:J 011 2 pr~ge t h 1�eof that he ~ r ceived :-�18 ' 2lt9 . 96 a.-t:"" oalary during the year :from the Offj_(.e of he J.olL~itor Ge .errtl and de... however, that the t a't- evar refunded to the "' fo _�esa�� (~ offi 1 � a� " ,l ' r1. asc:lu..tnilJg ~ ''!K � � that ;:3t1 �iot�.er :-:..nd tne i1rst - ssista.nt U olicltor;:~ 'e.~.J.er:...l 1er e the CL � re1 und.s i.!lC!.de .vr t~wut sta. utory sanc t � 01 cannot t � r.:.d the IJ.ov,;;r .ment fol 01dng the ~.;ell�

ii: .. IJ GN - Gl! AJ~ bO . 193 1 33 ap)li co.'Gion of the statute , and that the Govern- .nm1 t is !!ever estopped. by mL, t .2.ke or error on L~l part of l �'�s r.(3ents . ) � � �. It is a \ve11 - kncun r:J.le o:t' tl:".t:..t erroneous a.~J-nl..ca tion and en- . or \,;e:~an�c the'" j_p\>f by p lbl:i.c of- ic r s do not block suLseou_nt co - �-:11,..t � c-- o:t'' �.,. .:. st��.,tu 0' �~ 1:,.,..., ~(.: .s..~..:.J~,~�-i'". L, � .�1'.. " ' " .......!�..1 {,.,._1�...,. (~\. . '~ 0 .I' ~~1 that the ~ovarnment is never estop_ ed y miotr :e r rror on the part of its agents . (1 0 ) � � � C.i:. .~olr � ::u.e.z , Inc . v . I'he ~ollector 01.:. nte:rnal .tevenue , et e..l ., tflJ. �.Irr . } 1 fter cleternini ng an1 hol1ing that 1etitioner is 5U ject to the 1965 deficiency incone tc.x , w.. i'iD.6. that said ttx, :.;J.u.s deficiency �nter st , ' amount to J. � , 2..'24�.. 1" , c:or.put J_, as :follo\-r(': ~.:tou t of tax ue � � � � held �� ��� "r'a..t.ance of t� ::': d~1 .� � � � '.< .. ,,.,. � dd : Je 'i ~iency in'te:rest .. 01�"' ,j I" U ''� l '. ,�..lt.~, "~�o�v � ..._ J. U.t ~pril 16, 1966 to -'�J)ril �15, 1969 � � � � a lo~al mount d1e � � � � � � -3 , ?2~ . 2~ �~'l.'"'t1"'--i_-;)-~<--�l-- i.t;4Jil:..e :;:,.ong : t"' n .. e 'el .,1one Co ., v . 1Jollector of Int� r1121 ~tcvenue , 90 ~)1'111 . 674, CoDrro�p�o.'i~1eY-~~ ~,--.L�-�l1i8e8L!v- 1, l~J.1.u:' ni ~J,r'1y-~ne27.,Jo.1nr9;-"9Jis2t6;~ r.~ce ' Iel ep hone 62 01 . .JvfiA ts3i (1 0)Pineda �v . ,.jou:rt of -~.,l:rst Instar1cs of 'luTab�s , 52 ~hi1 . 003 , 807; er.gue~"; Cor.solidntBd 98 71" 7')1_r, , ._,. ,.,. '���J'.. nJ�Y''.Y J. ... L. �~� ..t.i;o.) ,.._.',;",).~'.'..'_'_"L.J'~'.'l\,['"ilTf �\1i ' i1 ) J>,.'t'.C...,.>. (,t,c.r._, , .j.)!lJ...,jf l 9 � f� ' , ,.. ;�c:.l .., J. tra . z - c2rar~ de ~ rlnc v . ~ollector , et al ., 104� P'r i4.� 653 , 656; ' .!hili~'p ine J.L'IE'!'ican Jrug 'o . � ' o11Gctor of L1t i::l~nt'1.1 aevenue , ct al ., 106, 1 '8; ; O))el ( ,)hil . Illc . ��� ~;ollector of J��..t-n�r:.<:.l. : .ovr:m..e , L ... l 055�o , '-;optcmbel' 19 196 1 ; Luzon .;-ceve ... �o rin ~ ~o rnor~tion ~ . Court of ~ax :Jneals , L- 21005, October 22~ 1966 , 18 .., u 436 , 411-o ; ian -Juni?- v~ Uo1lrt of 1:,. :.;_):;:>e:tln , � - 23676 , .:L!>ril 2 , 1967 , 1~ G'C~P 903 , 90?; ~ e)ublic v . �~hilip) ino I. or'"~..;- .)is t~ . ncc LGlephone ~o ., s1- R� ~~ ! ' 6 lIJI: I <

..... �o. 1931 , th decision of tl r s.on1ent o rr.iss io ~ r of . nter na.l 1 venue ealed fro J."' f.!US ned . etiti r er is er y ov red to - ay r pon ent or s du y AUth riz d ,, olL..ctlon ge t tho sum Ol '3 ,.22lt . 2.3 i.~.clusive 0 13 de- fiei ncy i n �cr ~st . f t esL i s ~ount .~ot .,... i' "t�iith � n �n.1rty ( 30) . c.:Y 1rom che ' t# t is decis'on ')eco�cs f --..: 1 abd X cute y , p .,.. tioner \1 11 p y ... s rc.r ar ' o 5,) plus a del i nqv. ncy -st 1 1t r o � t ... mont 1 n he n..>aid ficiency int.:ome tax unt il ..fullY p�l i d , pro i de t 1at said 1ncerest "' .11 not exce ~ a p riod of thre""' ( 3 ) ~iO cost � .o ~ezon itY t ~ebr ry 27, 1970 . re~ � i x J'udge 1 �� nd .;:>O>ocia e Judce _\ � co u 1 s )U at~ opirdons . - �- _... 65 !'

LI I c ncur �in he o i... � o 01 my colleaeue that 1 nublie .ct .o. 4-360 , hich ~:.!''"� nts to Assistant Solicito�s uener 1 the s&me 'priv�leges " enjoyed by .Ju i 5 es of ~ourts o.~. .J.�'irst Instanc , does not com.~: r hen1 exempti n o.co the s~:;;.l"'ries of the o oer from � n ~hrie ax. I shoul � 1-ke to stress , o 11ever , one other .. oi.Llt , 'he~e is 1..o la\IJ or .:> ovis ion of' the Consti- � tutlon th. ch expressly exe,tp "' from in o e tax tiw ~al .ries of udge.., o o rt;;~ of i'irst In- s tanee . e exemption from inco � ~ax the sn1 ries of u 6es of 'our � o of .�'i st ns bt:..nc , a .. in the cnse o:"' all oth...r mem.b~ .:rs of tl e j ldi - iary; emru:m tes � so~lely J.!'om he n�ovision { ~ac � . 9 , rt . A.. /III) , ... the Jons ti tut:to.n vrhieh )ro.hi i tw :!.illlinu ion of their Sdlax ie ~ during their 't~rms o"' of ic .� Jiminution of the corn)er:.sation :f the embers may not , by lc.\�1 , . l"ohibit d.im.... nut.io l o the se.laries o � xec1 tive officers for it .muld be ou.~ress can nr;t bind a f' ture .~ongress . Cot 1re::w cannot prohibit dindnu.tio n of the sc laries of exec tive _f..:.cials , t:S in the case of th s,,.l.;.tries of' h ne bers of the Ja � � ary, 1t ~~ 66

CONCURRI G .. c~ t... Ci~� m,~ 1,93 1 follows that ssistant Solicitor s Gener al. can not be deemed to have been grante.. t e same "priv l eges ' hy .t epublio ct -so. >t-]60 ; (Jnd th~ ~xemption r om income ta.x 0. the salaries or judicial officer s hieh s merely implied ~rom the undim'nish l e char a cter of uch s ularies , ca n not likevis be "e med o hav bee n extended to them. 'llere s no quest_on that 'ong:reos has full :po'Vr r to exempt trom taxation the s larles of certain oxe utive ff i cials . ut eaoh exemp- t ion must be expressly provided y 1a\r. c;~lGI��l~.L SIGI\JI:.D l Ql/ .� -. H. iJ!'.'U LI Presiding Judge i~ 67

The questi p sed befrre the Court turns on the anin f the ter tt pr vile estt as s e is ed in epub ic ct 436 pr vi ino t hat rthe ran , privile es , and ua � ifications1 f the As is t olici ors ene al shall e the same as t hose f Jud �:es of the Court f First Inst ce . etitio r �s po _iti n is th t t e ter �pr iv le ge~ �n s i a i .t.Clu e eYe pti n fr ttle incom - t w oft e sal ries of he Ass,stant 'elicitors Gener � t i ur � eq ha his is .�o bee se Ju es f the urt rst nsta tee enjoy sai.d t n privilege n the trength f tte d c r e a d wn ln the cases of erfecto v .. ~eer (85' h � 5'2) an uencia a J"ue v . Uavid (4~ .. G. ~o . 11, p . 4 2' ; which hel that he pr - hibltion agaiY at t e r eduction o s 1 ries of ju cial o fleers during their tenure it1 office pr vi eo. by S ction 9, Art c e VIII of the C ~l ti - i ..l..ll_, udes in ir ec re u i n b we. 0 t ation. t urther e th t t e histor y o:t.' the w ru as it 1s usea 1n rlepubl�c Act 4360 1ows ha t the sa e haa. been inter r eted s�nce 19 lt t incluu.e e em ti n fro.u Lc me t , es of salaries of of icers i ilar y situated as petiti ~ r . Re- spv 1 ent 1 s 1-� si on m.~. h _ other han is tnat t e

/ ~JCU - !1 - CAC.z\ .. l . 1931 2 ter m '*privilege u use in said e u ic ACt does no clearly em.b:r ce tax exen::pti and the estab� lishe rule is that exempt on s~ ul appear �n cl r na bi uo a u ge . The e ta lis eO. princ iples of � axa � :i. n applicab e t t ' e c s e t bar ar e th �se applied to o:rpora ins with Cl rters r a t'ng powers to exerci e al t e power and privileges conferred on an ther r or at n . n thi int t h a thor- i't s s the foll in t wtatute' aut tor izin � or dir ect- n7 the ran r t r ansfer of the 11 pr iv1 ege�n of a corpor ati n wh ch e joys i tunity fro taxation shoul not be interpr ete s ' ncluuin t t i mmm1ity . Charter power Wto exer cise. all t e wers na .. rivi e esn c n- fe r red on a ther co.l4pany oes not grant a pa tial exemption fr om taxa.. tion possessea by the other comp~1y . Wright v . Geor ia Rai r _au &. arlkin � Co . , 16 U�� 4 , 436, 54 L. dj ~ 4 , 0 Sup . Gt . 242 , ~evie �i ~ ear- lier feder a <iecisions an f 11 \fin � oc.ester � o . v . Cit� of lochester, 205 U. S . 23 , 2~2 � ~1 L. Ed . 784 , 27 u � t . 4 9. ~It i true t here are some c ses \'l~ler� the t er ' privileges' i s been eld to include immulity fr m taxation, but t hat has enerally been w ere other .t-!' O Vi.;;.ior.~.s ci' the act 11ave 1ver s uch meaninr to it . Tl e a.tor � :r:c. , we think , the better opinion is tt1~ t 1nle s other pro - vision s re1ov al ubt o:t. the intention f the le islature to in- � clude t .ll.e 1 runi t . in t le term ' privilege ,� it will not be o con- ,, 69

o. 193 . 3 strue � I c al.t h e l t �u . force by confinin it to other g~ ts to the co p rati �1 i ckar d ast enne ssee, v. &. c�� Co ., 13 u�� 637 , 3 L. Td . l05l , Sup . Ct . 640 . { oot no te, p . 1523, Cooley on Ta ti r , 4th ' ti n , olut e 2.) tere is 1 tti in t he pr visions of Rep- ublic ct 436 . from which one may cather t hat t he privi e �es r ante: o the Aasistant Sol citors Gen r al i c u e exempt ion of their s larie~ from t e Inc me Tax Law. Said law use~ the term Vi eee 11 1a .. 1 an u. re y c onfers upon the ssista t So icitor Gener al he same pr lv� ile es h t e 5e ~ f he Court of lir t ns ance en� oy , Il - t e reference ma well be confined o > an o her th n. immunity f r om t xa- ion of s~ a ies , fo loving establis he octr ine 1 the mat te r. ,he � er ect v. 'leer, sugr a d. ndencia cases strengthens re- spon ent � s tan rather han supports petitioner ' p sit on. under the d c r1ne o t hese tv1o cases , h e ju icial o-f iclal does not eujoy t e immunity f liS sa ary r I.l the _come Tax Lav.J in the c n- cept 0 pr i il ge a t �1e term is used in its CO!' I:t n ac e . a 1 l in rela on to tax e ew.pt� ns . ,.,..-ae l i .'a .. lwut;. t .,. """'1"�t-n ::..1 tJ.~O erfect case ,, 7 0

o . 1931 4 is pt l e pressed ir. the followin � language of the decision t ereof; "Secon pe.rio � � 1862...1 91 � n July , 1862 , a statute tla s p ssed sub acting he sal ries o' ' ci il fleers 0 the uni e ' tes 1 to 1 i ncorne tax o t hr e per cent . eve ue offlc rs, constr ued it as i.t.lc di g the coCLpensc:<tion of 11 'ud:es; but .Chle" Justice Tan y , spea�� ng for the judiciary, itTrote v the oecretary � 1e Treasury a 1 � er of p ote t sayin , among otler th ngs : ' The act i n uesti n , as ' u interpret it, diminishes the cor:~ pe.sation o.a. eery judt;e 3 per cent, if .it can be diminished t that ' te J. byte r;.a..u.e f a t x , it may , in the samv w . ' be reduce r om i e to i l.e , at the pl a.sure of the le i latu e . *Th judiciarJ i ne of the throe great depart.:.4ents of the governme.t:1t , create - a11 establis;1ed by the onst.ituticn. Its � ties � ~' pO\-lers re spec ificall.Y set forth , an � a e of a charucter �at re�uires it to be . eri"e tly � nd epe -..~.ont of th two t er depart ~ent s , ~.u in o aer to place it beyond ~he reac h and above even he u p.Lc f 8..1"1Y s uch inf ue1.c , the povJer to reduce their compens ion s expressly withheld f r o1.4 CL~::*..:..ress , an exce tea. fr om their ~o ers of le islation . � p.age c ould no be 1...or e p a. n than t.tl t r sed in tn.e Con- st�tution . It is, mor over , 01e of its most iw ortant an e ss ~1tiel pr ovis~o . ~ � 'or t.he rt i cles vThict li J t the p wers of tle le6 i lative an ' exec tive branches o t he �overn- ~ents, anu those which provi e safe- "' ' 71

Rl~G .. � 19 1 5 guar ds for the protection o' t he ci i .z n i � 1s verson an;..., proi)erty , ou d be - f 11ttle val e \vi thout a ic � ar., to uphold a.r:d LUi n tain t hem, w' ic .h was free from every ll~l~en c, d rect 1u L~~rect , t hat 1 � 1t by possib� lity in tines of po i -'-ica axci'� u. n warp ttloir j udg ent � 1 U}on t.ese gr und regar n ct f Lot �ress r ata i. iL the reas ar porti�r.. of the c rwpen- satio of the 'udges , as u ~onsti - . t utional an vo~ . ' X X X X X l Jud�es w ld iideed e "P- le~-;s gttard.t.ar.~."' of tho 0vL.&t � tution if they di not ercei e n � 1 c <: .~.croac~ �lae:r: c u,cr t eil' prcr" a- tives n \vh� teve ~ for(!. . The un ir. ~~ishable char cter o, j~a " cia sa ~ri s no t a kere privil ~e of � l dg s ... - pe son 1 ana. tt H'ef re ri i vaole-- but a ba ic lie i atio - upon legislative or e~ecutive act�w 1 ~.�posed L tne pu. 1 c J. terest (Ev n.s -v � G re) . '~Indesd � he exe.mptio1 of the ' udiclal sa ary �rom r e uction b< taJatio re lly a gr tuity or ' rivi ege . Let he .ighest court nd speakJ ' T exem t or, :;i.' the udJ.cial c r...pensation from reductit.n is n t i1 ~Y tr e seLs~ a 6re ~it;, p�l - ile~e or exemption . It is esse �tial- ' u:n rilllaril ' colr.p;:;w..)ati � n bQ.sed upor val uable con siaeration . The c !t nanr; the .v .rt of the b vern.. me t. is a ruar anty whose fulfillme t is s much as par t of the cons � er a� t ion a �reed as is the t1o.ne:r salary . The w.~.a.er o ~:..i b has i o;:l �)arti- e~ ar va ue to t ' e c iti zens ln securing the independence of e judiciary in crises; and in the esta lish ient oft e compensation �~ 72

G ~ 31 J: � e~ er t > e~r c ..~ ~ec C.Liex..ts , ~na de<lic a c .us:vel. o the ~o o:c... �"'vus duties GP _r r.. � ts _ uf .!.ce . ~ , it i"' 1 r refntable t -c 4<. th c. uur - a l' �v., -... s.l.L.~.~t a l'!,<... Llc�r.;L.,n of s~lvl'J' b" tlle .L � t. n tho c of Ena.er cia '"nd .. L[,C , it .vas Q th tt cl .C 01 � � 1l ? 73

NCU. ING - CT ' ASt � 1 31 7 r o the pr on uncel!tents f the tS pr e e L. C ur t in the fore oin. e:x.corpts it is har lY. .recess r y to say that the uu s of the ourt f Fi r t Insta 1 o not enjo t~e i ,u it f their sal ries from the .!.CO e Ta aw in the concept of a pr i vi e e a"-> lis ter is used in its usu c ceptati n in rel.at on to tax exemp- tion . his is n..,.ue cle ~ it Gor y v . er is ( ~ . ) 939 , 5 tl . ep . 2d eriest P� , �w ich is cite by the Gupr e e .ourt in su port of i eci i in erJ.ect v. heer , � xempti n 1 an irn.munit or privile -. e; i is freedom froi a char �e or b tr e ��o \ihic 1 o he s are su. jecte �'' (Greenfield v � .1eex�. 77 hil . �314 . ) Gor dy v . Den .~.is , supr�, learl holds that "the guaranty a ainst a r uc ion of al ries by the i.u.~.p si... tion of a ta i.s n t an exem.l,)tio .from atio in the �ense of f ree o r .m bur den or �er ice t which hers are liable. 11 Ra 1e , the Judges t e Court of First nstc:.nce enjoy the immuni ~cau e it is a condition attache � t their f4ice by a constitutio p~ vision pursuant t the po i c i s una. r1.11 g the U..Lstribut �on an li t&- tions o � powers :f th th1�ee .re t p rtments ur gover e 1 T put i differ en ly, the i~ 1 t-:1 I ' '{

r C(; ~cu I �u - I T C ~~ �~� . 1931 8 imr un.i ty is part of the att r ibute riven by the co stlt t n t the jud'clal depaJ:�tment . ~1 - e t bl she is the rule that the rig t of taxa ior '!.vil . n t be held t have been surren� .erea unless the in en ion to ~urr nuer 1~ ~ l1- fasted by ~ r s too plain to be fuis t a1 en and it i when the tar1 s of the c n ession are too ex licit to a �mit fa ' r :t of an other con true- t o.. at he ta_x e; el!lption oay be en oyea �. � ri uez , I c � v. 'he 1 ector f nternal ever.lu a t e 'ourt of T . ppeals , G. � No . .J - 23 41, ' y 3 <;6') . ) We ca har ly give s expa sive a mea in, to the grant f rivile es o t e s istun elicit rs ene;r. a to i.~:Icluae w� t Ju � �es o n. t clea ly enj .l in t.t1e con- c pt � f privi e -"e ' ithout vio ting the rules of' str ct con truct n ot� tt~X oxeo pt on . It is ure;ed. tnat wL..en �epublle Act N � lt 6v use the \ ord 1 priv 0bSH tpe same b d already ad~in strative y received a prac ical co st ucti as i c uding therein e� e pti?n frv income t f s lari P- judicial of icer t wh u the snwe privileg >:1 as J'ua e ~ the ourt f 'ir�t Ins~ance h~u . eon xpr e s gr(;.ntea by law. n

- C J~q � I I NO - CT i A ~E .- � 9 1 ~ ort f t is c n t1 n, it is al ged by pe i loner th the law creating the Lan egi - \ tr tion o is ion ef ective 19~4. p ovid ' t at t e Co ni sione.r nshall be entitled t the s n e com.pensati n , era luments and privi eges as til se o t1e uct es o~ t e ur o �"irs ns ance . " �o ssessm nts wer e ma~ of the salary f the and egistra ion C mmissio .Ler .. ;;;ince hen r greS enac e la\'JS bra:nti 4 to f ~ c �l' ls ut- si e of' "the judicial hierarchy as \�ell as o mem- bers of r e sp ci c urts the ame pr'vilege s Juuges o t.. 1e ourt of i/' rst Inst" ..ca . With r pect to the salarl s f "the e o ficial t1e .bureau o uterna 1.1.evtm � e fol ot-1eo. then i 'ts . actice o r n- assess.ment o . sa r-ie of n n... j ici l officers r a ted the s e rivi e es as ju �ges of t~1e Court of ""ir Insttutc � l 65 , ep blic ct 4360 , la raising the s laries of th Solici~ors but not of he ssistant S llcitors Gener 1 , grantetl the la ter the same pr.ivile �es s JU ..,es of the urt f "irst nstance . ' 'h s , � t raa be presum.ed that when hi 1 w a a s Con~ress 1as cogn z nt o ' he pr acti c al a it r tive int.e pre a on of t1e term' pr1.vileges11 when si 1 arl. use , t . at is,� that it 'nc ludes !' 76

- � l~o . 193l 0 ax e...... tion. Th r 1 is f course t the fe t hat r~reat vteight hould be given to ax administr 1ve interpretati � artie rly wh Con ress pre� with that construct n in ind . d~ini trat ve n co .ression 1 1 ter retations owever hould e in harmon; 'th the accepte c n~ tuti nal � c c ncepts and wt viclativ thereof . t ee 1s uif icu t t acce t n inter ret ~io th t 1 er'fect c n erts in o a pr ivile e wi1a.t is co.~.- et a l not a r Vi e e er he pertiJ.ent provisio of the c n tit ti n in t e llg t of the decisions in Per fecto v . Heer , su r a , and nuenci n Ju o v. David , Aithouoh r co ,i1z'n that a � r e surJ 1 �.ulation , if valid , eng in ff .ct an never d:isap.~Jroved b Congress , notw:i� t.~. tan i � the amend- ment by that b several ti -~of s , ma� be treats e i ome t as n afu...inistr� ive i terpretation ot th :>..isti!.L a.v, the ourt in liilge Iberg v . uni teci Sl:at s (1.~3 ; JJC) .il '""Sup.t- 45, sai ' that clta� ion o au horit es wa~ scarce y neces ary 'tO refute the proJositi n hc.t what is not in fac i c t;.~e wit - in tne .moani g o � he ixtee t 1end� 1uent can be "-� o. such by 1 islative act or by a mer r la ion o an a in"strati e department . ( 8 u.s . 84 d 73 � )

\iCu (] 1 0 . 19 1 ll WI 0 ., ~ I concu Wl l th d cis1 n o \ � varez. u e st ni 1 ( d .) ol 1 . v s elate