Hudson Valley Fed Credit UnionThe Hudson Valley Fed Credit Union
North Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union
Loy Servicing - Support your members with all their credit. The CU Student Choice - Student Borrowing and University Scheduling Resource Guide. Cancellation of the credit cooperative is due to the following public holidays: It is important to remember that our Personal Teller Service will keep to the following schedule: If you would like information about MHV branches, call centers and staff plate closings and lags due to bad meteorological condition, please visit us on Facebook and our Announcement page.
VALLEY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION vs. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTEMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE
This is HUDSON VALLEY VEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, among others, respondents. In this case we are asked whether the New York State Ministry of Finance records the New York State Record Keeping Fiscal Law on the loans granted by federation credit cooperatives.
During 2009, Hudson Valley Fed. Credit Union filed a suit for a declaration against the State Department of Fiscalation and Finance, its agent and the State of New York (together the Department). The Hudson Valley claimed that it was not obliged to repay the MRT on mortgages granted to its members because (1) the FCUA exempted the Fed credit cooperatives and their assets from state taxes and (2) exempted the Fed credit cooperatives as instruments of the United States from state taxes under the Supremacy Clause.
With the permission of this court, Hudson Valley is appealing. In 1906, the German law 253 prescribes an MRI of 50 Cent per 100 Dollar main liability for every mortgag on properties within the state. Paying the duty is a suspensive requirement for the correct registration of a hypothecary (see section 258 of the German Fiscal Act).
The Hudson Valley calls on us to interprete the wording"[f]ederal credit union shall be exemplpt from all taxation" in such a way that all hypothecary credits granted by German government credit cooperatives are excluded from the MRI. Hudson Valley argues in reply to the absence of a legal mention of home ownership in Section 1768 that the concept of "property" can be interpreted in a broad sense to cover credit.
Referring to several rulings of the United States Supreme Court, she argued that mortgages such as MRI are charges on "property" that fall under the ban on state taxation. Alternatively, Hudson Valley claims that the MRI is equivalent to an illicit immediate levy on the credit cooperatives themselves. Hudson Valley's legal histories refute its interpretations of the concept of "property".
" In 1934, Congress issued the FCUA and approved the establishment of federation credit cooperatives. However, since the law came into force and, more significantly, at the moment of the 1937 reform, the federation credit cooperatives were not authorised to grant their members mortgages (see Pub L 73-467, 7, 48 Stat 1216, 1218[73d Cong, 2d Sess, 26 June 1934][to grant credits with a maximum term of two years]].
In 1768, Congress could not have envisaged Section 1768 to release from state tax the particular lendings action at the time of the issuing of mortgaged credits - as credit cooperatives could not engage in such action. When Congress eventually gave the Bundeskreditgenossenschaften the power to provide housing mortgages (see Pub L 95-22, 302, 91 Stat 49[95th Cong, 1st Sess, 19 April 1977]), it did not change section 1768 to specifically provide "mortgages", nor did it otherwise express its intention to incorporate them into the definitions of "property" exempted from state tax.
The Hudson Valley further claims that government credit cooperatives were founded to make loans for "provision or production purposes" more available to "people with small" or humble means (see Pub L 73-467, Preamble, 48 Stat 1216, 1216[73d Cong, 2d Sess, 26 June 1934]). He argued that the approval of the MRI for application to German credit cooperatives frustrates the FCUA's objective and has serious pecuniary consequences for German credit cooperatives.
Finally, we refute the Hudson Valley's claim that it is a federation eligible for MRI waiver under the supremacy clause. Though Hudson Valley quotes the authorities in supporting his arguing that federation credit cooperatives are federative instruments,7 the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that unconstitutional "tax sovereignty is appropriate only under one circumstance: when the charge is levied on the United States itself or on an agent or institution so intimately associated with the government that the two cannot reasonably be considered as distinct units, at least in terms of the activities to be taxed" (United States v. New Mexico, 455 U.S. 720, 7
Bundeskreditgenossenschaften are privately run organisations that have been charters under Swiss legislation. Though they are governed by the National Credit Union Administration, they are fully in the possession of their members and are financed and administered by them (see 12 USC §§ 1753, 1759, 1761, 1761b). The members appoint the executive committees of the credit cooperatives (see 12 USC § 1761).
Managers have a high degree of independence in the management of the day-to-day work of credit cooperatives, which includes the control of investment, the determination of the limit on the number of stock bank balances and the determination of the class of stock (see 12 USC § 1761b). In addition, the Board of Directors has the power, with certain restrictions in the FCUA, to "set interest rate for loan (including mortgages), collateral[ ] and the limit on the amount that may be lent and provided in credit lines" (12 USC § 1761b).
For this reason, we do not see the German government credit cooperatives as "so close to the government of the United States" that they "realistically cannot be regarded as distinct entities" when it comes to real estate loans. Overall, on the basis of the FCUA's legal interpretations and legislation we note that the state MRI does not exclude the central credit cooperatives' hypothecs.
Accordingly, the order of the appeals department with expenses for the accused should be changed by stating that Feds are not exempted from the New York State Mortgages Registration Duty and, as amended, will be confirmed. Pursuant, das Bundesundes Credit Union Act (FCUA) (12 USC 1751-1795k) sieht vor, dass "[t]he Bundesundes credit unions organised under, their property, whose franchises, principal, capital, reserves, surplus, und other funds, and, and other provisions,
In addition, their revenues are exempted from all taxes now or in the future levied by a state, with the exception that "each piece of land and each material individual ownership of these federated credit cooperatives is liable to the same level of state, provincial and municipal taxes as other similar assets" (see 12 USC § 1768[highlights added]).
My interpretation of this rule is that it states clearly that a federated credit cooperative is exempted from any form of taxes, with the exception of the taxes on private assets in reality and in kind. The New York Mortgages Registration Duty (MRT) (Tax Law 253) is an exchange rate on the transfer of ownership rather than a charge on the land plot that is secured by a mortgages to safeguard a credit.
Furthermore, MRI is not a levy on material individual ownership such as movable machines and devices, implements, vehicles or any other asset (except immovable properties or buildings) in legal terms. Since the MRI is not a levy on private ownership, whether material or immaterial - the only two exceptions to the exemptions of federation credit cooperatives from all taxes - New York must not force the MRI on the claimant Hudson Valley Fedral Credit Union (Hudson Valley).
"Each Bundeslandbank, which includes the principal and the reserves or the excess therein and the proceeds therefrom, is exempted from state, provincial, communal and communal tax, with the exception of property tax owned, bought or assumed by this IB, First mortgage exported to Bundeslandbanks or to Aktienlandbanks,
of the United States Government, and as such they and the resulting revenues are "exempt" from federal, state, communal and communal taxes (see 12 USC formerly §§ 931-933[highlights added]).
In Bismarck the question was raised as to whether construction material acquired from a Bundeslandesbank for the maintenance and refinement of foreclosure auctions is liable to state value added taxpayers' pay. The North Dakota Supreme Court found in the North Dakota State Sale and Purchase Ttax that all other types of taxation except property taxation were approved because Section 26 included special exceptions for "capital and reserves or surpluses therein and the proceeds therefrom" (see Bundeslandbank St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 70 N.D. 607, 627-628, 297 N.W. 42, 52).
That is the same argument that is used by the Appeals Department and tacitly by the vast majority here (see Hudson Val. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin. This was annulled by the Supreme Court, which concluded that "the extensive exemptions granted to'each Bundeslandbank'' prevented the state from levying any kind of taxation unless it was subject to the explicit legal derogation for property taxation (see Bismarck, 314 U.S. at 100).
In its ruling, the Court finds that "the non-qualified concept of "taxation" used in 26 is clearly encompasse [d VAT] in its area of application" and thus offers the company an important "protection" that cannot be "wasted" (cf. paragraph 99). In addition, the North Dakota Supreme Court ignored "the simple fact that every state branch of should be exempted from federal, state, communal and communal taxation" (id.).
It underlines that the tax exemptions contained in Article 26 - i.e. "including the principal and the reserves or the excess therein and the proceeds therefrom " - illustrate and justify the general tax exemptions of the undertaking, with the exception of property-tax. They have not limited or modified the general exception (id. for 100["[T]er term'including' is not an all-encompassing description, but merely means an indicative use of the general principle"].
In fact, as the court stated, "the extensive relief granted to "every Bundesland bank" was restricted to the special figures referred to in the subset inserted by "inclusive", it would not have been necessary to exclude the properties owned by the Landesbanks" (id.).
Lastly, the Court found that "the extra derogations for agricultural loans and the first mortgage loans to rural credit institutions did not give rise to any expectations to the contrary": "Bondholdings are in the hands of individuals, and of course the general exception of § 26 would not apply to them. Likewise, the general waiver would "protect mortgages exported to and kept by the rural credit institutions, but it would not outlive a conveyance " (id. [ accentuation added]).
To sum up, the general tax relief for the Landesbanken contained hypothecs "executed by the legal person", although the term "mortgages" did not appear in the "illustrative use of the general principle" (cf. Mehrheit opt. 3-4[with the meaning of whether the term "mortgages" appeared in indicative bills in Swiss law].
Bismarck states that (1) a legal relief of a company from the tax of that company and its operations will protect it from all tax for which it would otherwise be responsible; (2) a provision in such a law in which certain tax exempted positions are illustrated and not restrictive; and (3) exemptions from the tax relief must be explicitly and not implicitly indicated by the court.
FCUA Section 122 (12 USC 1768) provides Bundeskreditgenossenschaften with exemunity from "all taxes". "Although the FCUA does not use the term "including", the FCUA exceptions are either indicative or in supplement to the exceptions of the federation credit cooperatives themselves, and in both cases the exception is adequate for the company itself under Bismarck.
Since the FCUA expressly excludes only the tax on private assets in reality and in substance and the MRI does not belong to either of the two categories, the MRT is excluded from the Hudson Valley claimant's MRT collections (see Bismarck, 314 U.S. at 99; see also California Credit Union League v. - City of Anaheim, 95 F.3).
30, 31-32[9. Cir1996][Employees of Bundeskreditgenossenschaften who are exempt from the city's temporary occupation duty while staying in the town for commercial purposes in accordance with § 1768], were withdrawn from circulation for other reasons. State of Anaheim v. California Credit Union League, 520 U.S. 1261, in custody 190 F.3d 997[9. Cir1997]; United States v. 851 F.2d 803, 807[6. Cir1988][Federal credit associations that are exempt from parts of the state value added tax]).
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia recently ruled that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are exempted from the District of Columbia's registration duty on the grounds that "otherwise it would violate the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court" - namely Bismarck - "to interpret the official jargon that was practically identical" (see Hager v. Federal Natl. Mtge).
N.A., --- Fupp 2d ----, 2012 WL 4127869, 2012 U.S. Dist LEXIS 132744[WD Mich. 2012][Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are exempted from a Michigan record tax]; but see Oakland County v. Federal Hous. Soup 2d ----, 2012 WL 1658789, 2012 U.S. Dist LEXIS 40099[ED Mich. 2012][Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not exempted from state and municipal property transaction tax].
Each of these three regulations exempts companies from" all taxes", with certain exemptions for properties (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and assets (federal credit cooperatives). "Since the Wells Fargo Regulation exempts ownership from taxes, and because an excisable duty such as inheritance duty is levied on something other than ownership itself, the legal regulation has not reached inheritance duty.
This was not, in other words, the duty that was levied. "On the other side, the legal regulations in question release a company from any kind of taxes. This means that it is subject to the legal exception. One example shows the difference: if the law had provided that "Fannie Mae's land should be exempted from any taxation", Fannie Mae would still be responsible for the registration duty, as it is a duty on the conveyance of the land and not on the land.
However, because the law instead frees Fannie Mae himself, "neither his belongings nor his operations can be taxed" (2012 WL 3228658, *4, 2012 U.S. Dist LEXIS 111709, *13-14). Only Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be "exempt" from capitation fees and income taxation on individual ownership, since only these two taxation and one estate taxation are "definitely known as direct" (2012 WL 3228658, *5, 2012 U.S. Dist LEXIS 111709, *15[internal quotes and quotes omitted]).
Commenting that" [i]f all Congress signified to complete, for sure it would have done so with a tightly formulated proviso rather than the broad'all taxation' wording that it chose" (2012 WL 3228658, *5, 2012 U.S. Dist LEXIS 111709, *15-16). Firstly, as already mentioned, the plurality stresses the lack of the term "mortgages" in Section 1768, because "in other circumstances, if Congress has envisaged to immunise "mortgages" of federal charters of lenders from state tax, it has expressly done so" (majority opt at 3-4).
It is in direct contradiction with Bismarck, who makes it clear that when a company is exempted from any tax, an indicative register does not restrict or change this general tax relief. And, of course, as the majority points out properly, the FCUA did not authorise government credit lines to provide home mortgages until 1977, while the waiver laid down in chapter 1768 was added to the FCUA long before, in 1937, (ID at 5-6).
In 1977, the overwhelming part of the Congress then attached great importance to neglecting to modify Section 1768 in such a way that "mortgages" (or otherwise the intention to incorporate a mortgage into the definitions of "property" exempted from state taxation" (id. at 7). In other words, since Section 1768, Confederation credit cooperatives exempted from all state tax except those based on physical and material private ownership, Congress did not need to use the term "mortgages.
" Rather, Congress should have provided a third derogation for the taxing of hypothecs and/or the transferring of immovable properties in order to abolish these duties from the general duty-free regime for "all now or later levied taxes" (emphasis added). In both cases, we stated that MRI is not a wealth assessment but a" MRI" but rather a levy on the privileged registration of the mortgage" (Silberblatt, 5 N.Y.2d at 642, 186 N.Y.S.2d 646, 159 N.E.2d 195), a kind of consumption levy (Franklin Socy., 282 N.Y. at 86, 24 N.E.2d 854).
However, in order to determine whether a state tax holiday excludes a certain type of state taxes, the characterisation of the duty is a matter of state, not federation, legislation (see First Agric. 392 U.S. 339, 347; see also U.S. 374, 378[noting that the Supreme Court was not linked to the characterisation of the State' s mortgages by the Supreme Court of Alabama to determine whether a first mortgages under the FFL Act was exempted from taxation]).
The Supreme Court has ruled that a state levy on the registration of a mortgages is a levy on the mortgages (see Crosland, 261 U.S. at 378-379; Pettman v. Home Owners' Loan Corp. A total of 12 USC 1768 sec. exempt state credit cooperatives from all state duties except those on immovable and physical ownership, and the MRI is neither; therefore, the claimant Hudson Valley, a state credit cooperative, is not covered by the MRI.
This is the outcome required by the text of the law and the case-law of the Swiss Confederation, as well as the Supreme Court's case law. The order changed, with charges to the accused, by the declaration that federation credit cooperatives are not exempted from the New York State Mortgage Accommodation Law and, as amended, confirmed.