Bunker Hill Country Club v. United States, 42005.
| Decision Date | 03 December 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 42005.,42005. |
| Citation | 9 F. Supp. 52 |
| Parties | BUNKER HILL COUNTRY CLUB v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Claims Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Arnold R. Baar and Herman T. Reiling, both of Chicago, Ill. (KixMiller, Baar & Hoffman, of Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for plaintiff.
Fred K. Dyar, of Washington, D. C., and Frank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Before BOOTH, Chief Justice, and GREEN, LITTLETON, WILLIAMS, and WHALEY, Judges.
This is an action to recover the sum of $22,944 with interest, the principal sum being the amount paid by plaintiff from May 31, 1927, to December 31, 1930, as a tax on initiation fees and dues, and for which a claim of refund was filed and rejected.
The facts established by the evidence are different from those in any other case that we have had before us, and, so far as we know, from those considered by any other court. The issue to be determined is new, although it is quite likely that similar facts exist in many instances where no legal controversy has arisen.
The plaintiff is a corporation organized under the statute of Illinois in relation to corporations for pecuniary profit. The declared purpose of this organization was to construct, own, and operate a golf club for the use and benefit of the public generally, also to operate a clubhouse restaurant, locker rooms, and garage in connection therewith, and to conduct amusement enterprises in all of the branches pertaining thereto. The provisions of its numerous by-laws so far as material to a decision of the case are set out in finding 2 and will be summarized further on in this opinion.
It is contended on behalf of plaintiff that although it bore the name of a club, the corporation was not in fact a club, but merely a profit-seeking concern. This is true if we consider the corporation in the abstract and the corporate entity by itself and alone, but this fact does not settle the case. The tax is not upon the corporation, but, as we said in effect in Congressional Country Club v. United States, 44 F.(2d) 266, 71 Ct. Cl. 161, upon a privilege, and it applies to dues or membership fees required of the members of a club or organization. We need not determine whether there was a club in the strict sense of the term, as it is sufficient if there was an organization and upon that point we think the evidence leaves no doubt. It is not easy to make a comprehensive and exact definition of the words "organize" and "organ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Epstein v. United States
...or a substantial commingling of a defined group of individuals for a common purpose or objective. Bunker Hill Country Club v. United States, 9 F.Supp. 52, 56, 80 Ct.Cl. 375, 384 (1934), cert. denied 296 U.S. 583, 56 S.Ct. 94, 80 L.Ed. 412 (1935); Chattanooga Automobile Club v. Commissioner,......
-
Regents of University System of Georgia v. Page, 7784.
...Shannopin Country Club v. Heiner (D.C.) 2 F.(2d) 393; Lafayette Worsted Co. v. Page (D.C.) 6 F.(2d) 399, 400; Bunker Hill Country Club v. United States (Ct.Cl.) 9 F.Supp. 52; Wourdack v. Becker (C.C.A.) 55 F.(2d) 840, certiorari denied 286 U.S. 548, 52 S.Ct. 501, 76 L.Ed. 1285. The admissio......
-
Engineer's Club of Philadelphia v. United States
...is entitled to the refund. This is consistent with what we said on the motion for a new trial in the case of Bunker Hill Country Club v. United States, 9 F.Supp. 52, 10 F.Supp. 159, 160, 80 Ct.Cl. 375, 385. In that case suit was brought to recover taxes paid on initiation fees and dues coll......
-
Kansas Human Rights Com'n v. Topeka Golf Ass'n, 69029
...members associated together for the common purpose of playing golf has been held to be a social club. Bunker Hill Country Club v. United States, 9 F.Supp. 52, 56, 80 Ct.Cl. 375 (1934). A yacht club which leased space from the state and rented slips to its members is a "social, athletic or s......