Boots and Saddles, Inc. v. United States, Civ. A. No. 25572.
Decision Date | 30 June 1967 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 25572. |
Citation | 269 F. Supp. 274 |
Parties | BOOTS AND SADDLES, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
W. Ralph Musgrove and David P. Ruwart, of Raymond, Chirco, Fletcher, Donaldson & Ruwart, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.
Lawrence Gubow, U. S. Dist. Atty., and Milton Trumbauer, Jr., Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty., Detroit, Mich., and Steven Cochran, David A. Wilson, Jr., and A. C. Murphy, of U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant.
FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This is a suit brought by Boots and Saddles, Inc., a Michigan non-profit corporation, on behalf of its members for the recovery of federal excise taxes assessed on monthly board payments for its members' horses lodged in stables maintained by plaintiff, for the period from January 1, 1958 through December 31, 1960.
The issues raised by the pleadings and proofs are:
It was the position of the plaintiff that these payments were for horse feed and exclusive use of a stall, paid in addition to an annual assessment; that they were computed and billed monthly on the basis of a charge for the occasion of actual use only, and are not subject to the excise tax imposed by Sec. 4241 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
The case was tried before the Court without a jury.The Court finds from the evidence the facts to be as follows:
The plaintiff was a club within the meaning of Sec. 4241(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.Its physical property consists of a rented stable, containing thirty-six (36) horse stalls, a riding ring, tack-room and kitchen-dining room.The rental lease with Ford Motor Company, owners of the property, also gave the club members the privilege of riding over farm-roads of the farm on which the barn is located.
The tack-room contained tables, chairs and a library consisting of magazines devoted to horses.It was used occasionally for "horse movies" and occasional parties and social events were arranged for members, including horse shows and "breakfast rides".
Applicants were required to attend at least two (2) meetings to determine their fitness for membership.They were required to own a horse and to board it.After certifying in their application that they have read and agree to be governed by the Articles and By-Laws of the Club, they were accepted for a six-month probationary period, after which they were voted in at a meeting of general membership.There was only one class of membership.
Each member was assessed Twenty-five Dollars, ($25.00) per year, in addition to which he was required to deposit Forty Dollars, ($40.00) per horse for monthly board in advance, and pay thereafter a board bill amounting to Forty Dollars ($40.00) per month.Revenue from these board payments constituted eighty-six percent (86%) of the Club's total receipts in 1958, and eighty-one percent (81%) in 1959.Payment of the board bill also gave the member the right to use all of the club facilities at any time he wished.
All the club documents, including the Articles of Incorporation, referred to these payments as a "monthly board".The By-laws provided that "there shall be no fractional refunds".
Only about two percent (2%) or eighteen (18) of the board payments out of the eight hundred sixty (860) board payments during the period here in issue were other than a flat amount.These were in a few instances when the member joined or...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Hoke v. United States
...my original ruling I relied primarily on the case of Knoll Golf Club v. United States, 179 F.Supp. 377 (D.N.J. 1959). This case has been followed in two recent cases. Boots and
Saddles, Inc. v. United States, 269 F.Supp. 274 (E.D. Mich.1967), and Gearhart v. United States, 269 F.Supp. 309 (E.D.Va.1967). In the latter case Judge Hoffman distinguished the case of Gould v. United States, 187 F.Supp. 337 (D.Col.1960), aff'd per curiam, 296 F.2d 740... -
Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. United States
...White v. Winchester Country Club, 315 U.S. 32, 62 S.Ct. 425, 86 L.Ed. 619 (1942); Cohen v. United States, 381 F.2d 383 (Ct.Cl.1967); Boyden v. United States, 218 F.Supp. 220 (D.Mass.1963);
Boots and Saddles, Inc. v. United States, 269 F.Supp. 274 (E.D. Mich.1967). 6. The $24,000 annual payments by plaintiff to Westview are taxable under Section 4241(a) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which imposes a tax equivalent to 20% of any... -
Ox Ridge Hunt Club, Inc. v. Tax Com'r
...appreciable period of time and were not fixed by the incidence of actual use. E. g., Gearhart v. United States, 269 F.Supp. 309 (E.D.Va.1967) (monthly charge for boarding horses); Boots & Saddles, Inc. v. United States,
269 F.Supp. 274(E.D.Mich.1967) [175 Conn. 95] (monthly charge for horseboard); Cohan v. United States, 198 F.Supp. 591 (E.D.Mich.1961) (yearly payments for seasonal use of a reserved locker or boatwell; payment for "skipper's card" entitling... -
Alpine Country Club v. United States
...represent a figure equivalent to twenty percent of the sum so paid. The club has the duty to collect it and, failing that, to pay it. The view above set out is supported by the ruling of the court in Boots and
Saddles, Inc. v. United States, 269 F. Supp. 274 (E.D.Mich.1967). In that case the taxpayer was attempted to reduce its tax base by twenty-five percent for amounts expended to purchase food for its members' horses. In rejecting the taxpayer's argument the court concluded (p.States, 269 F. Supp. 274 (E.D.Mich.1967). In that case the taxpayer was attempted to reduce its tax base by twenty-five percent for amounts expended to purchase food for its members' horses. In rejecting the taxpayer's argument the court concluded ( p. 276): The statute imposes a tax on "any amount paid" and does not provide for any reduction of the tax base for any reason. Since the statute provides that the whole charge should be considered dues regardless of how it is used by the...