Birch v. McColgan
Citation | 39 F. Supp. 358 |
Decision Date | 09 June 1941 |
Docket Number | No. 1430-B.,1430-B. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Parties | BIRCH v. McCOLGAN, Franchise Tax Commissioner of California, et al. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
George Acret, of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.
Earl Warren, Atty. Gen., and H. H. Linney, and Valentine Brookes, Deputy Attys. Gen., for defendant State officers.
No appearance for other defendants.
Before MATHEWS, Circuit Judge, and HOLLZER and BEAUMONT, District Judges.
This is an action by A. Otis Birch against nine State officers of California, namely, Charles J. McColgan, Franchise Tax Commissioner, Paul Peek, Secretary of State, Earl Warren, Attorney General, George R. Reilly, Fred E. Stewart, R. E. Collins, William G. Bonelli and Harry B. Riley, members of the State Board of Equalization, and John F. Dockweiler, District Attorney of Los Angeles, County; and against four other defendants, namely, Birch Securities Company, a Nevada corporation, Birch Holding Company, a Delaware corporation, M. Estelle C. Birch and R. R. Landrum. The complaint prays for interlocutory and permanent injunctions restraining the State officers from enforcing against Birch Securities Company the California Bank and Corporation Franchise Tax Act1 (General Laws, and Supp. 1939, Act 8488), on the ground that the Act is unconstitutional; and, on the same ground, restraining Birch Securities Company, its officers and directors, from complying with the act or submitting to its enforcement. The State officers have moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.2 The application for an interlocutory injunction and the motion to dismiss the action have been heard and are now to be determined by this court, constituted as provided in § 266 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 380.
Pertinent sections of the California Bank and Corporation Franchise Tax Act are §§ 4, 5, 11, 13, 25, 27, 30, 31 and 32. Pertinent provisions of § 4 are in subdivisions (3), (4) and (5) thereof:
Section 5 defines the term "doing business" as "actively engaging in any transaction for the purpose of financial or pecuniary gain or profit." Section 11 defines the term "income year" as "the calendar year or the fiscal year ending during such calendar year, upon the basis of which the taxpayer's net income is computed," and defines the term "fiscal year" as "an accounting period of twelve months or less ending on the last day of any month other than December."
Section 13 provides: "Every bank and corporation subject to the tax imposed by this act shall, within two months and fifteen days after the close of its income year, transmit to the franchise tax commissioner a return in a form prescribed by him, specifying, for the income year, all such facts as he may by rule, or otherwise, require in order to carry out the provisions of this act."
Section 25 provides:
Section 27 provides: * * *"
Section 30 provides:
Section 31 provides:
Section 32 provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kimmey v. HA Berkheimer, Inc.
...249 F.Supp. 894, 903-904 (M.D.Tenn.1966); D. C. Transit System v. Pearson, 149 F.Supp. 18, 19-20 (D.D.C.1957), and Birch v. McColgan, 39 F.Supp. 358, 365-366 (S.D.Cal.1941). In addition to the exoneration procedure, under Pennsylvania law, 72 P.S. § 5566b,9 a taxpayer can remit the tax to t......
-
Goldstein v. Groesbeck
...right to bring a derivative suit were in the control of those charged with inflicting the corporate injury." See also Birch v. McColgan, D.C.S.D.Cal., 39 F.Supp. 358, 366; Piccard v. Sperry Corp., D.C.S.D.N. Y., 30 F.Supp. 171; and Wachsman v. Tobacco Products Corp. of New Jersey, D.C. N.J.......
-
Walker v. Munro
...given them by the statute.' Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, supra, 17 Cal.2d at page 291, 109 P.2d at page 949. Birch v. McColgan, D.C.1941, 39 F.Supp. 358, cited by plaintiffs, is not in point. In that case, the administrative remedy was not adequate where the party who might have i......
-
Hirshhorn v. Mine Safety Appliances Co.
...v. United States Lines Co., 2 Cir., 1938, 96 F.2d 148; Piccard v. Sperry Corp., D.C. S.D.N.Y.1939, 30 F.Supp. 171; Birch v. McColgan, D.C.S.D.Cal.1941, 39 F.Supp. 358; Wachsman v. Tobacco Products Corp., D.C.N.J.1941, 42 F.Supp. 174, reversed without deciding this point, Wachsman v. Tobacco......