Barnes v. the Railroads
Decision Date | 01 December 1872 |
Citation | 17 Wall. 294,21 L.Ed. 544,84 U.S. 294 |
Parties | BARNES v. THE RAILROADS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
In both the cases, and in the cases of several other railroad companies4 which had made dividends, or were about to pay interest, the assessor of the district assessed a tax of 5 per cent on this dividend. The companies refused to pay, and the collector, one Barnes, distrained. Thereupon the companies sued Barnes in trespass.
The question in the cases was whether the duration of the tax upon 'interest or coupons, dividends or profits' of railroad, canal, and other companies, imposed by the 122d section, quoted above, was subject to the limitation fixed by the 119th section, taken in connection with the 116th section. In other words, whether a tax upon the profits, interest, or dividends mentioned in the said 122d section was authorized to be assessed and collected, where such profits were set apart or where such interest or dividends became due and payable after the 31st of December, 1869, and especially as in the second of the above-mentioned cases, where the dividend was declared after that date. The government contended that the limitation referred to was not applicable to the tax described in the 122d section, and that the assessment and collection thereof, upon interest, dividends, &c due and payable subsequent to that date, were authorized; a position denied by the railroad companies and their stockholders and creditors.
The court below was of opinion that the tax was not authorized, and gave judgment accordingly. From that judgment the collector brought the cases here.
In this court the cases were twice argued. On the first argument, the court being then composed of eight judges, there was an equally divided bench. After the accession of Mr. Justice Hunt a new argument was ordered, and it was accordingly reargued by Mr. G. H. Williams, Attorney-General, and Mr. S. F. Phillips, Solicitor-General, for the collector; and by Messrs. J. G. Gowen, Chapman Biddle, and Theodore Cuyler, for different railroad companies interested.
Mr. Justice CLIFFORD, now, March 3d, 1873, delivered the judgment of the court in all the cases, dividing them, as they had been argued, into two classes; the first class being where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kindred v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...Department of the Treasury. See, e.g., Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U.S. 257, 261, 25 L.Ed. 648 (1879); Barnes v. Philadelphia & R.R. Co., 17 Wall. 294, 84 U.S. 294, 304, 21 L.Ed. 544 (1872). According to the Internal Revenue Manual § 5.1.1.2, revenue officers working for an IRS field officer un......
-
Boston & P.R. Corp. v. Old Colony R. Co.
...These acts of Congress had been the subject of litigation. Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433, 19 L. Ed. 95;Barnes v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 17 Wall. 294, 21 L. Ed. 544;Railroad Co. v. Collector, 100 U. S. 595, 25 L. Ed. 647;Bailey v. Railroad Co., 106 U. S. 109, 1 S. Ct. 62, 27 L. E......
-
State ex rel. Froedtert Grain & Malting Co. v. Tax Comm'n of Wis.
...But the United States Supreme Court is authority for so considering the instant tax. It was held in Barnes v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 17 Wall. (84 U.S.) 294, 306, 21 L.Ed. 544, that a tax of 5 per cent. on dividends declared by railroad and canal companies, due or payable to stockholders,......
-
State v. Obrero
...clear in one statute may be called upon to create doubt in another." As the Supreme Court explained in Barnes v. Philadelphia & R.R. Co., 84 U.S. 294, 17 Wall. 294, 21 L.Ed. 544 (1872) :Where a section or clause of a statute is ambiguous, much aid, it is admitted, may be derived in ascertai......