645 F.2d 4 (5th Cir. 1981), 80-3338, United States v. State Tax Commission of State of Miss.
|Citation:||645 F.2d 4|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant, v. STATE TAX COMMISSION OF the STATE OF MISSISSIPPI et al., Defendants-Appellants Cross-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||May 11, 1981|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|
Hubbard T. Saunders, IV, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff-appellee cross-appellant.
Robert E. Hauberg, U. S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., M. Carr Ferguson, Gilbert E. Andrews, Michael L. Paup, Richard Farber,
Steven I. Frahm, Tax Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendants-appellants cross-appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
SKELTON [*], Senior Judge, and RUBIN and REAVLEY, Circuit Judges.
Regulation 25 of the Mississippi Tax Commission imposed a wholesale liquor markup tax on all liquor sold within the state, including liquor sold to the federal military installations located there. On its second trip to the Supreme Court, Regulation 25 was held to impose an unconstitutional state tax upon these instrumentalities of the United States government. United States v. State Tax Commission, 421 U.S. 599, 95 S.Ct. 1872, 44 L.Ed.2d 404 (1975). 1 On remand, the district court held that the United States was entitled to a refund of the amount collected at the military bases to pay the unconstitutional tax, stipulated to be $1,371,367.81. Judgment was entered for the United States in that amount, plus 6% interest from the date of judgment. On appeal, the Tax Commission contends that the district court erred in ordering the state of Mississippi to refund the amount of tax paid by the United States. The United States also appeals, contending that the district judge should have granted the United States prejudgment interest on the amounts collected by the Tax Commission in the years 1966 through 1975.
The Tax Commission argues that the United States is not entitled to a refund because of its failure to comply with the requirements found in Miss.Code Ann. § 27-73-3(1) (1972). That statute requires a person seeking a tax refund to allege and prove that he alone bore the burden of the tax. That state statute, however, has no application in this case. The Supreme Court has determined that the tax is unconstitutional and it follows that the amount of tax paid by the United States should...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP