1960-02-01 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 589, Minutes February 1, 1960 Page 15 motion at this time to amend Section 901.15 by adding a new subsection thereto to be subsection 12 thereof, said new subsection 12 to read as follows: "The gross receipts for tax purposes up~der this section for any merchant whose home office or main office is located in University City shall be the total gross receipts of said merchant reduced by the amount actually paid by said merchant to any other city for merchants' gross receipts taxes or special license fees, provided, however, that said reduction in no event shall exceed the amount of gross receipts from said company in said other cities in which a merchants~ gross receipts tax or special license fee is paid." Councilman Lahrmann said he thinks an exception was made when this matter was considered and no longer take gross receipts for real estate people and insurance people, meaning the gross amount of the policy written or the amount of real estate transferred, so that there is an exception there, and he said he is happy this was done because it is just. In turn, however, he stated, there are some businesses which are located in University City and who operate in other cities and must pay the equivalent of a merchants' license in ~t~ose cities in order for them to add to their gross receipts. He said where they, in turn, have to pay that fee in order to add to their gross re- ceipts he would like to see the Council give them credit for that not to exceed $1'.00 per $1000 which is the City's base -- in other words, if a city charges them 5¢ per $1000 University City can collect an additional 95¢ on it, but if a city charges them $2.00 per $1000 University City will at least give them credit for $1.00 on the $1000 merchandise. Councilman Tandler said he thinks this is just and enables University City to have some home offices or main offices of companies without being subject to double taxation, and therefore, he said, he would like to have this added to sub- section 12, section 901.15. Mayor Kaufman asked whether there is a second. Councilman Tandler inquired of Councilman Lahrmann whether he is intending to include various license fees such as construction permits, inspection fees and Councilman Lahrmal~n answered that is not intended to be the same as a merchant's license tax. I.Iayor Kaufman said there is a motion on the floor and he asked whether there is a second. There was no response, whereupon the Mayor said absent a second the motion fails. Mayor Kaufman asked whether any member of the Council desires to move the adoption of the bill, whereupon Councilman Baris pointed out the bill has not had the sufficient number of readings. Bill No. 5790 As £~nended was given its second reading. Bill i~o. 5790 As Amended was given its third reading. Councilman Tandler moved adoption of Bill No. 5790 As C~ended as an Ordinance. Motion seconded by Councilman Baris. Upon roll call, the following vote was r~corded: AYES: Councilmen Soule, Stake, Greeson, Baris, Tandler and Mayor