Summary

Thurgood Marshall First Agricultural National Bank of Berkshire County v…

For the expansion of the immunity of the one government correspondingly curtails the sovereign power of the other to tax, and where that immunity is invoked by the private citizen it tends to operate for his benefit at the expense of the taxing government and without corresponding benefit to the government in whose name the immunity is claimed.' [8]
That is precisely the situation here; I would heed those words and hold that national banks, today, are not immune from nondiscriminatory state taxation as federal instrumentalities.
Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall First Agricultural National Bank of Berkshire County v…

Government officials do not run its day-to-day operation nor does the Government have any ownership interest in a national bank.
Appellant points to two factors as leading to the conclusion that national banks are federal instrumentalities: that they 'owe their very existence to congressional legislation,' and that they are subject to extensive federal regulation. But the fact that institutions 'owe their existence to,' i.e., are chartered by, the Government, has been definitely rejected as a basis alone for determining they should be tax immune.
Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall First Agricultural National Bank of Berkshire County v…

If that alone were enough, then it would seem that state banks which elect to join the Federal Reserve System should also be tax-immune federal instrumentalities. [7]
In any event, there is little difference today between a national bank and its state-chartered competitor: the ownership, control and capital source of each is private; each exists for private profit. More importantly, neither may issue legal tender:
'With the passing of the national bank notes, the United States lost much of the difference between the national banking system and the state banking systems.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature