Curry v. United States
| Decision Date | 10 November 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 603,603 |
| Citation | 62 S.Ct. 48,86 L.Ed. 9,314 U.S. 14 |
| Parties | CURRY v. UNITED STATES et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Thomas S. Lawson and John W. Lapsley, both of Montgomery, Ala., for petitioners.
Mr. Charles Fahy, Acting Solicitor General, for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from page 15 intentionally omitted] Mr. Chief Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to State of Alabama v. King & Boozer and United States, 314 U.S. 1, 62 S.Ct. 43, 86 L.Ed. —-, decided this day. It presents the question whether, by the cost-plus contract involved in the King & Boozer case, the contractors, who are respondents here, are immune from the use tax imposed by the Alabama statute, Act No. 67, General Acts of Alabama, 1939, p. 96, Code 1940, Tit. 51, s 787 et seq., because the materials with respect to the use of which the tax was laid, were ordered by the contractors and used by them in the performance of their contract with the Government.
Section II of the taxing act, Code 1940, Tit. 51, § 788, provides: '(a) An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased at retail * * * for storage, use or other consumption in this state at the rate of two per cent (2%) of the sales price of such property, * * * (b) * * * Every person storing, using or otherwise consuming in this State, tangible personal property purchased at retail shall be liable for the tax imposed by this act * * *.' Section III, Code 1940, Tit. 51, § 789, exempts from the operation of the statute the storage, use or other consumption of property, the sale of which is taxed by other provisions of the statutes, and the storage, use or consumption of property, taxation of which is prohibited by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Petitioner, Commissioner of Revenue for the State, assessed and collected from the contractors a tax on their use or consumption, within the state, of a quantity of roofing which they purchased outside the state and caused to be shipped to the camp site within the state, where they used it in the performance of their construction contract with the Government. The present suit was brought by the United States and the contractors in the state circuit court against petitioner, individually and as Commissioner, for a declaratory judgment determining the tax liability of the contractors and for a decree ordering refund of the tax paid by the contractors. The lawfulness of the tax was challenged specifically on the ground that the plaintiffs, respondents here, are exempt from the tax by the provisions of the state statute and are immune from it, because the use and consumption of the roofing by the contractors as agents or instrumentalities of the United States is constitutionally immune from taxation.
The circuit court sustained the tax, declaring that it was laid upon the contractors by the statute and that they were not constitutionally immune from the tax because of their use of the purchased property in performance of their contract with the United States. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed, 3 So.2d 582, holding that the tax infringed the constitutional immunity of the United States, for reasons stated in its opinion in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powell v. United States Cartridge Co Aaron v. Ford, Bacon Davis Creel v. Lone Star Defense Corporation 8212 1949
...system was designed and operated so that the United States should not be the employer.' 164 F.2d at page 1020. Cf. Curry v. United States, 314 U.S. 14, 62 S.Ct. 48, 86 L.Ed. 9, and State of Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U.S. 1, 62 S.Ct. 43, 86 L.Ed. 3. Those cases held that the contractors,......
-
United States v. Livingston
...considered in James v. Dravo Contracting Company, 302 U.S. 134, 58 S.Ct. 208, 82 L.Ed. 155. In the companion case, Curry v. United States, 314 U.S. 14, 62 S.Ct. 48, 86 L.Ed. 9, the Supreme Court sustained Alabama's use tax upon the same contractor involved in King & Boozer, when he used in ......
-
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas Co Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Magnolia Petroleum Co
...cost-plus contract with the United States, State of Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U.S. 1, 62 S.Ct. 43, 86 L.Ed. 3; Curry v. United States, 314 U.S. 14, 62 S.Ct. 48, 86 L.Ed. 9; and a state severance tax imposed on a contractor who severed and purchased timber from lands owned by the United ......
-
Penn Dairies v. Milk Control Commission of Pennsylvania
...to the federal government (State of Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U.S. 1, 62 S.Ct. 43, 86 L.Ed. 3, 140 A.L.R. 615; Curry v. United States, 314 U.S. 14, 62 S.Ct. 48, 86 L.Ed. 9), there is all the more reason why Pennsylvania, acting to protect the public health, can require, until Congress m......
-
The Sovereign Shield.
...(recognizing that McCulloch dealt with the states' power to tax the "instrumentalities" of the United States); Curry v. United States, 314 U.S. 14, 17-18 (1941) (holding that government suppliers were not immune from state taxation in part because they were not "agents or instrumentalities ......