Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury
Decision Date | 04 March 1944 |
Docket Number | No. 8417.,8417. |
Citation | 141 F.2d 24 |
Parties | FORD MOTOR CO. v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY OF STATE OF INDIANA et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
James A. Ross, Robert D. McCord, and Merle H. Miller, all of Indianapolis, Ind. (Ross, McCord, Ice & Miller, of Indianapolis, Ind., of counsel), for appellant.
Winslow Van Horne, John J. McShane, and James A. Emmert, all of Indianapolis, Ind., for appellees.
Before KERNER and MINTON, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.
Only one question is presented here: Whether the plaintiff-appellant, the Ford Motor Company, a non-resident of Indiana, must pay to the State of Indiana a tax on its gross income from a certain type of transaction designated in the record as "Class A sales." The years in question are 1935, 1936, and 1937.
The plaintiff paid the tax and brought suit in the District Court to recover against the defendants-appellees, the Department of Treasury of the State of Indiana and the officials constituting the Board of that Department. The District Court made findings of fact and stated its conclusions of law thereon in favor of the defendants. From a judgment in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff has appealed.
The plaintiff, as stated in its brief, relied solely upon errors arising out of the court's conclusions of law. The evidence is not before us. The record consists only of pleadings, findings of fact, which are unchallenged, and conclusions of law.
For a description of Class A sales, we look to Finding No. Ten:
"The major cause of the additional assessment asserted by the department was due to the imposition of a tax upon gross receipts by plaintiff from sales where cars, trucks or parts were shipped directly from the plaintiff's factory at Dearborn, or from plaintiff's assembly plants at Chicago, Cincinnati, and Louisville, to dealers in Indiana who were assigned to such branches, and (1) where such products were paid for by such Indiana dealers in cash upon the delivery thereof at such dealers' place of business in Indiana, such payments having been made by such dealers to the employees of the truck-away or convoy companies upon delivery, and (2) where such products were paid for by such Indiana dealers with finance papers, or a combination of finance papers, and cash, upon delivery thereof at the dealers' place of business in Indiana, such payments having been made by such dealers to the employees of the truck-away or convoy companies upon making such delivery, and in both instances the collections so received by the truck-away or convoy companies were by them taken and delivered in due course to the respective branches of the plaintiff aforesaid entitled to receive the same, were deposited by such branches in their regular depository as hereinbefore found, and were thereupon subject to the further order and disposition by the plaintiff as its property; these may be properly referred to as `Class A' sales."
The District Court made further relevant findings concerning the nature of Class A sales in Finding No. Seventeen:
From these findings, it is clear that Class A sales were sales of merchandise manufactured and assembled outside of Indiana but that every transaction in the sales, with the exception of the shipment of the goods and the receipt of some orders, took place in Indiana.
As the Gross Income Tax Law of Indiana was originally enacted in 1933, Chapter 50, Acts of 1933, Burns Indiana Revised Statutes Annotated (1933) § 64-2602, it provided:
This statute was limited by the holding of the Supreme Court in J. D. Adams Manufacturing Co. v. Storen, 304 U.S. 307, 58 S.Ct. 913, 83 L.Ed. 1365, 117 A.L.R. 429, so as to exclude from its scope sales made outside the State by a domestic corporation of Indiana, although the goods were manufactured in Indiana and shipped therefrom. In accordance with this holding, the Gross Income Tax Law was amended in 1937, Chapter 117, Acts of 1937, Burns Indiana Revised Statutes Annotated (1943) § 64-2602, to read:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
West Coast Exploration Co. v. McKay
...for the Southern District of Indiana denied recovery on the merits and the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. 141 F.2d 24. The Supreme Court, ruling that the suit was one against the State of Indiana which had not consented to be sued in a federal district court, vac......
-
Ford Motor Co v. Department of Treasury of State of Indiana
...department shall have notified the petitioner, in writing, of the denial of such petition. * * *' 4 Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury of State of Indiana et al., 7 Cir., 141 F.2d 24. 5 322 U.S. 721, 64 S.Ct. 6 See note 3 supra, § 64-2614(a). 7 Burns, Indiana Stat.Ann. § 64-2614(b) (1......
-
Jagnandan v. Giles, EC 73-9-K.
...directed against a state or states pursuant to Section 5 of the Amendment. We note that the plaintiffs in Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 141 F.2d 24 (7 Cir. 1944), raised constitutional challenges (burden on interstate commerce) which were decided adversely to the plaintiff, but ......
-
Gross Income Tax Division v. Warner Bros. Pictures Distributing Corp.
...are in consumption, and mingled as much as from their nature they can be with other property of the state.' Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 7 Cir., 1944, 141 F.2d 24, involved the assessment of gross income derived from the sale of cars, trucks and parts which were shipped directl......