Dickert v. Hickey
Decision Date | 09 November 1940 |
Citation | 47 F. Supp. 577 |
Parties | DICKERT v. HICKEY, Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Budd, Coffey & Bertine, of Bronxville, N. Y. (Philip A. Obst, of New York City, of counsel), for complainant.
John T. Cahill, U. S. Atty., of New York City (William L. Lynch, of New York City, of counsel), for defendants.
Plaintiff, who maintains and operates a restaurant on East First Street in the City of Mount Vernon, in this District, seeks to permanently enjoin the defendants from executing a warrant of distraint to collect $403.70 (plus interest) assessed as a tax against the plaintiff on 367 gallons of alcohol, and from making any other levies on the same assessment.
It is alleged in the complaint that the tax was assessed upon liquor "possessed by plaintiff" which he denies, and that the assessment was made pursuant to Title II, Section 35, 41 Statutes, 317 of the Act of October 28th 1919, which is Title 27 U.S. C.A. §§ 1 to 89, popularly or otherwise known as the National Prohibition Act.
Plaintiff contends that the "tax" is a penalty and therefore uncollectible by a warrant of distraint but only by civil or criminal suit with a right to trial by jury, and that failure to enjoin the execution of the warrant of distraint would permit a violation of due process guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and that there is no adequate remedy at law.
Prior to the National Prohibition Act the Congress had imposed a tax under the revenue laws on distilled spirits (14 Stat. 480) and no distinction was then made between tax on spirits for beverage uses and non-beverage purposes. Such distinction was made for the first time by Section 300 of the Revenue Act of 1917, 40 Stat. 300. That law fixed $2.20 per proof gallon on spirits withdrawn for non-beverage use and $3.20 per gallon for those withdrawn for beverage use. Section 600 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1918, 40 Stat. 1057, continued the distinction but changed the beverage rate from $2.30 to $6.40 per gallon while the non-beverage rate remained at $2.20.
The National Prohibition Act became effective Jan. 16, 1920. Section 35 of Title II of that Act, Title 27 U.S.C.A. § 52, provided:
On November 23, 1921, the so-called Willis-Campbell Act, 42 Stat. 222, was passed supplementing the National Prohibition Act; Section 5 thereof, 27 U.S.C.A. § 3, provided as follows:
"All laws in regard to the manufacture and taxation of and traffic in intoxicating liquor, and all penalties for violations of such laws that were in force when the National Prohibition Act was enacted on October 28, 1919, shall be and continue in force, as to both beverage and non-beverage liquor, except such provisions of such laws as are directly in conflict with any provision of the National Prohibition Act or of this Act this title; but if any act is a violation of any of such laws and also of the National Prohibition Act or of this Act this title, a conviction for such act or offense under one shall be a bar to prosecution therefor under the other."
On the very same day the Revenue Act of 1921, 42 Stat. 227, was passed. It amended Section 600 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1918 to provide for the imposition of an additional tax of $4.20 per gallon on distilled spirits diverted to beverage uses after withdrawal from bond for non-beverage purposes and provided that the tax at non-beverage rate of $2.20 per gallon had been paid. § 600. Thus the total tax asserted against such diverted spirits equalled the $6.40 rate payable under the Revenue Act of 1918 on spirits withdrawn for beverage uses. Apparently because the new amendment was so drawn that spirits withdrawn for industrial use and then diverted for beverage purposes escaped the $6.40 tax, the Congress again amended Section 600 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1918 and in Section 900 of the Revenue Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 9, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Acts, page 302, provided as follows:
* * * * * *
The defendant denies that the assessment complained of was made under the provisions of Section 35, Title II of the National Prohibition Act, and contends that the assessment was made under the provisions of the Revenue Act for the reason that the face amount of the assessment of $1.10 per gallon on 367 gallons, making a total of $403.70, shows that it is the basic tax which is being claimed from the plaintiff.
While it is true that impositions under the National Prohibition Act, and particularly Section 35 thereof, were penalties, the collection of which could be enjoined (Lipke v. Lederer, 1922, 259 U.S. 557, 42 S.Ct. 549, 66 L.Ed. 1061; Regal Drug Corp. v. Wardell, 1922, 260 U.S. 386, 43 S. Ct. 152, 67 L.Ed. 318) the Government thereafter sought to forfeit, by libel proceedings under a provision of the revenue law, an automobile in which untaxpaid illicit liquors had been transported or concealed, and the Supreme Court discussed at great length the provisions of the National Prohibition Act as contrasted to the provisions of the Revenue Law and found them not to be in conflict. United States v. One Ford Coupé Automobile, 1926, 272 U.S. 321, 47 S.Ct. 154, 71 L.Ed. 279, 47 A. L.R. 1025. In referring to the basic tax on liquor the Court said in that case at pages 326-329 of 272 U.S., at page 156 of 47 S.Ct.:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Rigopoulos v. Kervan
-
Evans v. St. Louis Housing Authority, 15323.
...fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U. S.C.A. Dickert v. Hickey, D.C.N.Y. 1940, 47 F.Supp. 577. "It is imperative the complaint allege sufficient facts to show wherein this Court has jurisdiction. Gustafson v. Fred ......