Section 45 of the Unemployment Reserves Act of California
provides that an employer who fails to make the payments required
of him by the Act "shall become additionally liable for interest on
such payments at the rate of twelve percent per annum."
Held, that the exaction of twelve percent per annum is
not a "penalty," but is "interest" within the meaning of § 57j
of the Bankruptcy Act, and a claim for the full amount thereof is
allowable in bankruptcy. P.
314 U. S.
569.
116 F.2d 330 affirmed.
Certiorari,
post, p. 588, to review the reversal of a
decree denying in part a claim in bankruptcy.
Page 314 U. S. 565
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner is the trustee of a bankrupt which was indebted
to the California Unemployment Reserves Commission for
contributions which had accrued under the California Unemployment
Reserves Act. Section 45 of that Act provided that, in the event of
default in payment
Page 314 U. S. 566
of contributions due, the employer
"shall become additionally liable for interest on such payments
at the rate of twelve percent per annum from the date such payment
becomes due, both principal and interest being payable in the same
manner as the contributions."
Deering's Cal.Laws 1937, Act 8780d, § 45. The Commission
filed proof of a priority claim in the bankruptcy proceeding for
the principal amount of the accrued contributions and interest
thereon at the rate of twelve percent.
The trustee paid the principal sum with interest at six percent,
but refused to pay more, relying on § 57j of the Bankruptcy
Act, 11 U.S.C. § 93j, which provides that
"Debts owing to the United States, a State, a county, a
district, or a municipality as a penalty or forfeiture shall not be
allowed, except for the amount for the pecuniary loss sustained by
the act, transaction, or proceeding out of which the penalty or
forfeiture arose, with reasonable and actual costs occasioned
thereby and such interest as may have accrued thereon according to
law."
The trustee asserted that any exaction in excess of six percent,
which he claimed was the "reasonable and customary rate of
interest," was a penalty; the bankruptcy court decreed that all
above seven percent (a common, though not an invariable, legal rate
in California) was a penalty, and refused to allow so much of the
claim, and the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed on the ground that no part of the twelve percent was a
penalty. 116 F.2d 330. We granted certiorari because of the
conflict between this decision and that of the Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit in
In re Pressed Steel Car Co. of
New Jersey. [
Footnote
1]
Petitioner seeks to establish that the twelve percent exaction
here in question is not "interest" by pointing to Article XX,
Section 22, of the California Constitution, which
Page 314 U. S. 567
provides that, except for specified institutions, the rate of
interest on loans, and on accounts after demand or judgment, shall
be seven percent, and leaves the parties free to contract in
writing for a rate not exceeding ten percent. [
Footnote 2] We do not understand that, as a matter
of State law, the California legislature was thereby forbidden to
prescribe the higher rate here involved. And the mere difference in
rates does not establish that the twelve percent rate is not
"interest" within the meaning of § 57j of the Bankruptcy
Act.
It is common knowledge that interest rates vary not only
according to the general use value of money, but also according to
the hazard of particular classes of loans. Delinquent taxpayers, as
a class, are a poor credit risk; tax default, unless an incident of
legitimate tax litigation, is, to the eye sensitive to credit
indications, a signal of distress. A rate of interest on tax
delinquencies which is low in comparison to the taxpayer's
borrowing rate -- if he can borrow at all -- is a temptation to use
the state as a convenient, if involuntary, banker by the simple
practice of deferring the payment of taxes.
Another variable is the amount necessary to compensate for the
trouble of handling the item. The legislature may include
compensation to the state for the increased costs of administration
in the exaction for delay in paying taxes without thereby changing
it from interest to penalty.
Page 314 U. S. 568
These factors -- risk and the expenses of handling -- are
reflected in the interest rates permitted by California to certain
types of financial institutions: for example, credit unions may
charge interest at the rate of one percent per month; [
Footnote 3] pawnbrokers at two percent
per month on the first one hundred dollars of indebtedness;
[
Footnote 4] and personal
property brokers, two and one-half percent per month on the first
three hundred dollars. [
Footnote
5] A differentiation of treatment for particular types of loans
similar in principle is commonly made by other states. [
Footnote 6]
New York v. Jersawit, 263 U. S. 493, is
thought by petitioner to require a decision in his favor. That was
involved a New York statute visiting tax delinquents with an
additional liability of ten percent of the tax, and adding thereto
a further liability of one percent per month, which was not
denominated interest. The Circuit Court of Appeals had held that
such provision was penal, but had allowed interest at the usual
legal rate on the theory that it represented actual damage.
In
re Ajax Dress Co., 290 F. 950. This Court, speaking through
Mr. Justice Holmes, said:
"There can be no doubt that the additional ten percentum charged
for failure to pay by January 1 is a penalty, disallowed by the
Bankruptcy Act, § 57j, but it is urged that the one percentum
for each month of default is statutory interest, and that the State
is entitled to that, and otherwise would be entitled to none. As
the one percentum is more than the value of the use of the money,
and is added by the statute to the ten to make a single sum, it
must be treated as part of one corpus, and must fall with that. We
presume that, in this event, the State does not object to receiving
the
Page 314 U. S. 569
simple interest allowed. That part of the order will stand."
263 U.S. at
263 U. S.
496.
Here, the exaction computed according to lapse of time is not
lumped together with another percentage computed without reference
to lapse of time; here, the exaction is denominated interest by the
statute, and there it was not, and we cannot be so confident here
that twelve percent "is more than the value of the use of the
money," or of the validity of the implied major premise that an
exaction in excess of such value cannot be merely an interest
charge. [
Footnote 7]
The decision which controls here is the more recent one of
United States v. Childs, 266 U. S. 304,
where the statute separately denominated a flat five percent
exaction as a penalty, and an additional one of one percent a month
as interest. The latter was held to be "interest" within the
meaning of § 57j of the Bankruptcy Act. The distinction from
the fact that the exaction in that case was by the United States,
and in this case by a State, calls for no difference in result. We
must give credit to a state legislature acting within its
Constitutional sphere like that accorded to Congress acting in its
Constitutional
Page 314 U. S. 570
sphere. And the distinction which Congress made in the
legislation considered in the
Childs case and in other
revenue legislation between penalty as a fixed
ad valorem
amount taking no account of time, and interest which does depend on
time, is persuasive that its use of the word "penalty" in the
Bankruptcy Act will bear a like differentiation from interest.
Finally, it may be observed that Congress itself has provided in
the District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Act that, in the
event contributions are not paid when due, "there shall be added,
as part of the contributions,
interest at the rate of 1
percentum per month." (Italics supplied.) D.C.Code (Supp. V, 1939)
tit. 8, § 314(c).
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS took no part in the decision of this
case.
[
Footnote 1]
100 F.2d 147,
cert. denied sub. nom. Wick v. New
Jersey, 306 U.S. 648.
[
Footnote 2]
This reads in part as follows:
"The rate of interest upon the loan or forbearance of any money,
goods or things in action, or on accounts after demand or judgment
rendered in any court of the State, shall be seven percent per
annum, but it shall be competent for the parties to any loan or
forbearance of any money, goods or things in action to contract in
writing for a rate of interest not exceeding ten percent per
annum."
Expressly excepted are building and loan associations,
industrial loan companies, credit unions, pawnbrokers, personal
property brokers, State and National Banks, and cooperative
associations.
[
Footnote 3]
Deering's Cal.Laws Supp. 1939, Act 1887 § 3(5), as amended,
1939.
[
Footnote 4]
Deering's Cal.Laws Supp. 1939, Act 5826 § 2, as amended,
1939.
[
Footnote 5]
Deering's Cal.Laws Supp. 1939, Act 5825(2d) § 17, as
amended, 1939.
[
Footnote 6]
Clark, Financing the Consumer (1933), Appendix I.
[
Footnote 7]
Compare the following exactions, provided by the
various Unemployment Compensation Acts for nonpayment of
contributions due:
"Interest" at 6% per annum or its equivalent on a monthly basis:
United States, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts,
New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, Wisconsin; at 8%: Ohio; at
81/100% per month: Kansas; at 9%: Connecticut, Michigan; at 12%:
District of Columbia, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,
Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
West Virginia, Wyoming.
"Penalty" at 12%: Kentucky, Texas; at 2% to 25% per month:
Idaho.