United States v. Pittsburgh Ry Co Pittsburgh Ry Co v. United States

Decision Date24 May 1926
Docket NumberNos. 864,865,s. 864
Citation70 L.Ed. 962,271 U.S. 310,46 S.Ct. 493
PartiesUNITED STATES v. PITTSBURGH & W. V. RY. CO. et al. PITTSBURGH & W. V. RY. CO. et al. v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. William D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., and A. A. McLaughlin, of Des Moines, Iowa, for the United States.

Mr. Harvey D. Jacob, of Washington, D. C. (Mr. Frank M. Swacker, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Pittsburgh & W. V. Ry. Co. et al.

Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

The United States appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $21,295.62, being 2 per cent. tax on their consolidated income for 1921. Plaintiffs have taken a cross-appeal, and insist that the court erred in failing to add their expenses and attorney's fees.

The Pittsburgh Company owned all the capital stock of the West Side Company. Their railroads were taken over by the President and were operated under federal control from January 1, 1918, to March 1, 1920. They failed to make any agreement with the Railroad Administration as to just compensation to be paid them for the use of their properties until final settlement was made July 1, 1921. At that time there was paid to plaintiffs $1,570,000 in addition to $250,000 which had been paid on account in January, 1920. And the Director General assumed, in respect of the payment of taxes, the obligations which are specified in section 6 of the standard form contract authorized by the Federal Control Act, March 21, 1918, § 1, c. 25, 40 Stat. 451 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3115 3/4 a).

Plaintiffs made returns and paid the full amount of federal taxes for 1918 and 1919, respectively. These included nothing received as compensation for the use of their properties. The Director General reimbursed them to the extent of the normal taxes. Plaintiffs made their return and paid their taxes for 1920. Their income in that year in cluded the $250,000 paid on account. As federal control ended March 1, the Director General declined to allow more than one-sixth of the tax. The plaintiffs' taxable net income for 1921 was $1,064,781.39. This, because of deductions allowed, was less than the payment at final settlement. In 1923, upon plaintiffs' insistence, the Bureau of Internal Revenue held that the compensation received in 1921 for the use of their properties during federal control was income for that year, and that none of it was attributable to the period of federal control. Subsequently plaintiffs called on the Railroad Administration for payment of $21,295.62, 2 per cent. of their income.

The question for decision is whether plaintiffs' income tax for 1921 was 'assessed for the period of federal control,' within the meaning of the Federal Control Act and the authorized standard contract.

Section 1 of the Federal Control Act required that every such agreement should provide that federal taxes under the Revenue Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 300), or acts in addition thereto or in amendment thereof, commonly called was taxes, 'assessed for the period of federal control beginning January first, nineteen hundred and eighteen, or any part of such period' should be paid by the carrier out of its own funds or should be charged against or deducted from the just compensation; that other taxes assessed 'for the period of federal control or any part thereof,' should be paid out of revenues derived from operations while under federal control.

The authorized standard form of contract, section 6(a), provided that all war taxes assessed against the company under the Revenue Act of 1917 or any act in addition thereto or in amendment thereof should be paid by the company. And paragraph (c) provided that the Director General should either pay out of revenues derived from railway operations 'during the period of federal control,' or save the company harmless from all taxes lawfully assessed under federal or other governmental authority 'for any part of said period,' except the taxes and assessments for which provision was made in paragraph (a).

The tax of 2 per cent. imposed by section 10 of the Revenue Act of 1916 (39 Stat. 765) was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Summit Medical Associates, P.C. v. James
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • 26 January 1998
    ... ... Civil Action No. 97-T-1149-N ... United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern ... ...
  • Younger v. Harris
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 23 February 1971
    ... ... All claimed that unless the United States court restrained the state prosecution of ... ...
  • Doe v. Maher
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • 1 June 1976
    ... ... Civ. Nos. 15579, 15589 ... United States District Court, D. Connecticut ... June ... ...
  • Fuller v. Scott
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • 21 June 1971
    ... ... No. C-249-D-69 ... United States District Court, M. D. North Carolina, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT