White Rock Mineral Springs Co. v. Edwards
Decision Date | 31 December 1928 |
Citation | 23 F.2d 539 |
Parties | WHITE ROCK MINERAL SPRINGS CO. v. EDWARDS, Collector of Internal Revenue. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
O'Brien, Boardman, Fox, Memhard & Early, Morgan J. O'Brien, Jr., and Isidor Bregoff, all of New York City, for plaintiff.
Charles H. Tuttle, U. S. Atty., and Samuel C. Coleman, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of New York City, for defendant.
Motion by defendant to dismiss complaint, on the ground that it does not set forth a cause of action.
Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the business of dispensing carbonated spring water and the manufacturing and dispensing of ginger ale, both being known in the trade as "White Rock" beverages. The sales of these beverages concededly were subject to the tax imposed by section 628 of title VI of the Revenue Act of 1918 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. § 6161½d), which, so far as now material, reads as follows:
"There shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid * * * upon all unfermented grape juice, ginger ale, * * * artificial mineral waters (carbonated or not carbonated), * * * and other soft drinks, * * * a tax equivalent to 10 per cent. of the price for which so sold."
During the tax period in question, commencing February 25, 1919, and ending April 30, 1920, plaintiff paid a total tax of $154,634.78, that being 10 per cent. of the invoice price of its beverages to its customers. It claims that the total tax which was properly collectable was $138,394.44, leaving an excess of $16,240.35. To recover this excess the suit was brought.
The plaintiff contends that its invoice price included both the selling price and the tax, that the actual selling price was ten-elevenths of the invoice price, and that the remaining one-eleventh was the tax of 10 per cent. The government has taken the invoice price as the price for which the product was sold and computed and collected the tax accordingly.
The act went into effect February 24, 1919. On February 21, 1918, plaintiff sent to all its customers a circular telegram relating to White Rock water reading as follows:
The schedule of price lists shows that there was a flat increase of $1 per case. In two instances the increase of a dollar was more than 10 per cent. of the old selling price and in one instance it was less. The plaintiff made no change in prices for White Rock ginger ale until July 23, 1919, when it sent to its customers the following circular:
It appears from this schedule that there was a net advance of $1 a case — not an increase of 10 per cent. on the then prevailing price. The following is a typical invoice of plaintiff's product to its customers:
To continue reading
Request your trial