Stahmann v. Vidal 12 8212 13, 1938
| Decision Date | 07 November 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 12,12 |
| Parties | STAHMANN et al. v. VIDAL, Collector of Internal Revenue for District of New Mexico. Argued Oct. 12—13, 1938 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Thornton Hardie, of El Paso, Tex., for petitioners.
Messrs. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and Golden W. Bell, Asst. Sol. Gen., for respondent.
We are to decide whether the petitioners may maintain an action to recover from a collector of internal revenue sums paid by them as taxes assessed under the Bankhead Cotton Act.1
During the crop year 1934-1935 the petitioner were engaged in growing cotton and produced a quantity in excess of the allotment for which, under the terms of the Act, they were entitled to obtain tax exemption certificates. Petitioners delivered the excess cotton to Santo Tomas Gin Company, which ginned it and filed returns with the respondent, as collector, showing a tax of some $13,000 due on the ginning. The respondent, as directed by the Act, assessed the tax against the gin company. The latter refused to deliver the cotton to the petitioners until the tax was paid, and to obtain their cotton the petitioners, in November 1934 and January 1935, paid the tax to the respondent. March 6, 1935 they presented a claim for refund, which was rejected by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue August 22, 1935. Suit was brought against the respondent May 5, 1936, to recover the amount paid with interest, the petitioners alleging that the Bankhead Act was unconstitutional. This the answer denied, and set up the further defense that, under the Act, the petitioners were not liable for the tax, any payment they had made was in discharge of a liability imposed by the Act on the gin company, and, consequently, they were not entitled to maintain the action.
The District Court, a jury having been waived, held that the Act was unconstitutional, that the petitioners could maintain the action, and gave judgment for them. The Circuit Court of Appeals refused to pass upon the constitutional question, as it was of opinion that the trial court erred in sustaining the petitioners' standing, and reversed the judgment.2 On account of the importance of the case we granted certiorari, 304 U.S. 552, 58 S.Ct. 943, 82 L.Ed. 1523, limited, however, to the question whether the petitioners were the proper parties to maintain the action.
Section 20(b) of the Bankhead Act3 stated the conditions upon which a proceeding might be maintained for the recovery of any sum alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected under its terms. The Act was repealed February 10, 1936,4 prior to the institution of the instant action. The petitioners were therefore remitted for recovery of the sum demanded to R.S. § 3226, as amended by the Act of June 6, 1932, § 1103(a).5 As thereby required, they timely filed a claim for refund which was denied, and timely brought their action. Under this section it is unnecessary to plead or prove that the tax was paid under protest or its collection was accomplished by duress.
The sole question for decision is whether the petitioners voluntarily paid someone's else tax. If they did they may not maintain the action.6
The respondent insists that, by the terms of the Act, the tax is imposed upon the ginner and not upon the producer. The petitioners, on the other hand, point to the provisions of the Act which make the levy of the tax dependent upon the vote of cotton producers and not upon any act of the ginners; which base exemptions from the tax upon the time, manner, and character of production and not upon the time, manner, or character of ginning; which grant exemptions to producers, not to ginners; which condition exemptions upon the producers meeting certain conditions and limitations; and which fix quotas for exemptions to producers. They say Congress never intended the ginner should bear the tax since the Act provides that he is to be reimbursed up to twenty-five cents per bale for additional expense incurred by him in connection with the administration of the Act. They assert that the respondent's contention that the tax is upon the ginning of the cotton is negatived by the fact that it is not assessed upon all cotton ginned regardless of the amount produced by the owner of the particular farm, and that it amounts per bale to approximately five times the amount of the customary charge for ginning. They call especial attention to those sections of the Act which impose a lien for the tax upon the cotton if it is removed from the gin, forbid transportation of the cotton—the producers' property,—beyond the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Williams
...relies, that parties generally may not challenge the tax liabilities of others, is not unyielding. See, e.g., Stahmann v. Vidal, 305 U.S. 61, 59 S.Ct. 41, 83 L.Ed. 41. The burden on that principle is mitigated here because Williams' main challenge is to the existence of a lien against her p......
-
Colorado Nat Bank Denver v. Bedford 8212 1940
...44 S.Ct. 23, 25, 68 L.Ed. 191; cf. Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 116, 57 S.Ct. 96, 99, 81 L.Ed. 70. 31 Stahmann v. Vidal, 305 U.S. 61, 59 S.Ct. 41, 83 L.Ed. 41. 32 Helvering v. Therrell, 303 U.S. 218, 225, 58 S.Ct. 539, 543, 82 L.Ed. 758. 33 Bedford v. Colorado Bank, 104 Colo.......
-
Luce v. United States
...individual plaintiffs actually paid the additional assessment, they would have no standing in a refund suit. Stahmann v. Vidal, 305 U.S. 61, 66, 59 S.Ct. 41, 83 L.Ed. 41 (1938) (dicta); Busse v. United States, 542 F.2d 421, 424-425 (7th Cir. 1976). In the instant case, though, the additiona......
-
National Bank of Detroit v. Department of Revenue
...actually a tax on real estate of the kind forbidden in certain Federal leases. A similar situation developed in Stahmann v. Vidal, 305 U.S. 61, 59 S.Ct. 41, 83 L.Ed. 41, where the court looked into the purpose of the Bankhead cotton act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 724, and found that it was to place a bu......