Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Thousands of stamps, consistently graded, competitively priced and hundreds of in-depth blog posts to read
Stamp Community Forum
 
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some stamps?
Our stamp forum is completely free! Register Now!

Need Some Help Differentiating Draft Transactions

 
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
4402 Posts
Posted 12/29/2018   9:53 pm  Show Profile Check revenuecollector's eBay Listings Bookmark this topic Add revenuecollector to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
I'm having a hard time determining the criteria for when a sight draft document would have two taxable transactions vs. having only one. The difference isn't immediately obvious to me.

The vast majority of sight drafts in my collection have only a single tax stamp on them, but several have two, canceled by different parties, so presumably the second transaction has to do with the payment of the debt... but why then doesn't this apply to all sight drafts? Why just certain ones?

Some examples:

1. May & Senders paying the FNB of Albany, OR with funds on deposit in the account of Albany Woolen Mills in Albany. Single taxable transaction.




2. The Juan F. Portuondo Cigar Manufacturing Co. paying the Canandaigua National Bank with funds on deposit in the account of the A.D. ???? Co. Single taxable transaction.




3. Reynolds Brothers in TOledo, OH paying J.M. Spencee with funds on deposit with Mark Shultis in Boston, MA. Two transactions, one when originated, and one when paid. Why?





What makes #3 different from #1 and #2 in terms of taxable transactions? Me no gets.
Send note to Staff

Pillar Of The Community
Turkey
622 Posts
Posted 12/30/2018   12:25 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add mdroth to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Excellent question & nice documents. There are a few possibilities...

I don't believe the transactions are different. Financially & legally, there are effectively the same. So your real question is: why are there 2 stamps on the 3rd one (some sight drafts) & only one stamp on others?

My gut reaction is the 2nd stamp on the 3rd document was not required. The official who processed it simply wanted it to look more 'official' & decided to put a stamp on it. To indicate he had made payment.

It is possible that there were different rules for different states? You have 3 states represented here. We would need a state revenue historian. But my understanding was that the same rules applied everywhere...
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
422 Posts
Posted 12/30/2018   05:21 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Moyock13 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Could be the difference between states.
#1 stays within Oregon.
#2 pays from Pennsylvania to New York
#3 pays from Ohio to Massachusetts

Do you have any other sight draft docs from either Ohio or Massachusetts?
Mass. might have had different requirements for taxation in 1899.
Just a guess.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
630 Posts
Posted 12/30/2018   08:23 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add revenuermd to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I would love to see the reverse of the third item.

In the Civil War era, if there was an endorsement on the reverse in order to pass it on to a third party, this was considered a separate transaction and was supposed to have another 2 stamp attached. But this almost never happened and I do not recall seeing an example where this in fact was enforced. Because of the shortage of currency, Certified Checks were sometimes circulated to several other firms, since these instruments were considered as good as cash. Again I have never seen a stamp applied for each signatory. Nevertheless, legally these were separate and taxable transactions.

If there is no evidence of the third check being passed to additional parties, my guess is that the second stamp was not required.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Ron Lesher
Edited by revenuermd - 12/30/2018 08:24 am
Valued Member
United States
142 Posts
Posted 12/30/2018   09:10 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add therevenueman to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
No expert on fiscal documents, but wondering if when the draft was fist issued the pay to the order of was left blank, and when "Mark Shallis Atty" received the document he endorsed it to J M Spencer cashier and thus created the successive payee, as the cancel on the later dated stamp is from the receiving party. but as Ron states lets see whats on the back.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by therevenueman - 12/30/2018 09:11 am
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
4402 Posts
Posted 12/30/2018   10:41 am  Show Profile Check revenuecollector's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add revenuecollector to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Ron, here you go.

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
4402 Posts
Posted 12/30/2018   10:30 pm  Show Profile Check revenuecollector's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add revenuecollector to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I found another example of double tax paid. Different originating company, but same drawee, Mark Shultis, which tends to lend credence to the notion that this person mistakenly thought that he also needed to pay tax on the transaction.



Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
4402 Posts
Posted 12/30/2018   10:47 pm  Show Profile Check revenuecollector's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add revenuecollector to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
And now here's one that blows that theory out of the water. Yet another company, same drawee Mark Shultis, but this one NOT double taxed.

Oy.

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
422 Posts
Posted 12/31/2018   05:51 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Moyock13 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Interesting though, it appears to me that the signature (Mark Shultis) on last draft is a stamp and not an original wet signature. And it's also the oldest of the documents. Just an observation.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
16 Posts
Posted 01/12/2019   3:58 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add revinmn to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Any of these documents which have an ACCEPTED handstamp require a second payment of tax, at least during the Spanish American War tax period. That was considered a second taxable transaction.

I can't read all of the stamps on some of these drafts, but it is possible that some illustrated should have had the second stamp, but don't. The Shultis draft certainly should, and he almost always did add the second stamp - I have a number of drafts to him which do. This one is early in the tax period, so maybe he didn't realize that he should add one yet.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Go to Top of Page
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2019 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use    Advertise Here
Stamp Community Forum © 2007 - 2019 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.9 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05