Need Some Help Differentiating Draft Transactions

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

Ron, here you go.

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.

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.

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.

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.