SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL REVENUE 305 
on national banks, unless they are taxed on the value of the 
shares. If other intangibles are not taxed as property, the 
taxation of the stock of national banks at general property 
tax rates is no longer possible. The federal statute that 
provides for the taxation of national banks contains a provi- 
sion to the effect that a tax on shares cannot be at a greater 
rate than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands 
of individual citizens coming into competition with the 
business of national banks! In a decision rendered in 1921 
the Supreme Court of the United States held that moneyed 
capital meant any interest-bearing investment made by an 
individual.? A proviso enacted in 1923 seemed to liberalize 
the federal statute, but as the result of a decision handed 
down by the Supreme Court of the United States, the statute 
including the proviso is interpreted in such a way that in- 
terest-bearing investments in the hands of individuals are 
assumed to be in competition with national bank stock. 
Consequently, Missouri can continue the taxation of national 
bank stock as property only so long as interest-bearing invest- 
ments are taxable as property. 
It is doubtful that the taxation of national bank stock in 
Missouri could be continued if a national bank should go to 
the trouble of contesting the tax on the ground that many 
other intangibles are not taxed. In order to contest the tax, 
however, it would be necessary to produce evidence concern- 
ing intangibles that are not taxed, and the principal reason 
for not contesting the legality of the tax is no doubt found in 
the fact that the only information concerning intangibles 
that are not taxed which a bank might have would involve 
those owned by its clients. 
The authority previously quoted has stated: “The original 
method of taxing the shares as the personal property of the 
shareholders may be used by those states which are still so 
backward as to retain the system of taxing all intangibles at 
high rates as property.”® This statement is obviously ap- 
plicable to Missouri. The shares of state banks could not be 
1R. S. U. S., Section 5219. 
2 Merchants National Bank of Richmond v. City of Richmond, 256 U. 8. 635. 
8 First National Bank v. Anderson, 269 U. 8, 341, 350. 
! Lutz, H. L., Public Finance, p. 488. 
91