Downtown Club of Dallas v. United States, 16015.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtCAMERON, JONES and BROWN, Circuit
Citation240 F.2d 159
PartiesThe DOWNTOWN CLUB OF DALLAS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 16015.,16015.
Decision Date09 January 1957

240 F.2d 159 (1957)

The DOWNTOWN CLUB OF DALLAS, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 16015.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

January 9, 1957.


240 F.2d 160

Oliver W. Hammonds, Dallas, Tex., George E. Ray, Ray & Hammonds, Dallas, Tex., for appellant.

Louise Foster, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington D. C., John C. Ford, Asst. U. S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., Heard L. Floore, U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for appellee.

Before CAMERON, JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

JONES, Circuit Judge.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue ruled that The Downtown Club of Dallas, Texas, was a social club within the meaning of 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C.1939) § 1710, which provides:

"There shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid —
"(1) Dues or membership fees. A tax equivalent to 20 per centum of any amount paid as dues or membership fees to any social, athletic, or sporting club or organization, if the dues or fees of an active resident annual member are in excess of $10 per year.
"(2) Initiation fees. A tax equivalent to 20 per centum of any amount paid as initiation fees to such a club or organization, if such fees amount to more than $10, or if the dues or membership fees, not including initiation fees, of an active resident annual member are in excess of $10 per year."

The tax against the Club under the quoted statutory provisions was assessed and paid. Suit was brought by the Club for a refund of the tax. It asserted it was not a social club within the meaning of the statute.

Property owners in that part of Dallas, Texas, known as the downtown area had organized the Downtown Property Owners Association to promote the business and industry of the area and to prevent the shift of these activities to other sections of the City. A group of the members of the Association decided to organize a club to provide a place to meet in the area, using the meals, as one witness put it, "as bait, to get people to

240 F.2d 161
come there and eat, * * * to bring the business and professional men to this central area." The plaintiff, The Downtown Club of Dallas, was organized in 1946 as a non-profit corporation under the laws of Texas. Among its purposes, as set forth in its charter and by-laws were the bringing together of business leaders of various industries and professions, and promoting activities of philanthropic and business organizations. It was provided by the charter that the Club should have no social, athletic or sporting events except such as were subordinate and incidental to the active furtherance of the predominant purposes of the Club

The Club was granted an exemption from Federal income taxes as a business league, under 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C.1939) § 101(7). The Club established and maintained club rooms in the Texas Bank Building in Dallas consisting of an entrance hall, cloakroom, a lounge in which were kept newspapers and periodicals, and a television set. There was a main dining room seating 100 to 125 people, two small private dining rooms, a kitchen, a washroom for men and dressing rooms for employees. The Club had nearly 300 resident members, 46 non-resident members, and 22 junior members. Among the members were a diplomat, two of the clergy, and one from the armed services. The Club served luncheon each week-day with an average of about 90 being present for the noonday meal. Originally dinners were served on Thursday evenings. The Club's facilities were available to group meetings under the sponsorship of members. On football days busses were chartered for transporting Club members and their guests to and from the stadium. On week-days ladies used the Club only when participating in group meetings. They were welcome on Saturdays when accompanied by a member. They were included in the football expeditions. Liquor lockers were available to members from which liquor was served by club attendants. Dances and cocktail parties were held under sponsorship of individual members or of groups to which some club members belonged.

From the minutes of the Club it appeared that a hostess had been secured for family nights, that plans were made for ladies' nights with style shows, consideration was given to permitting ladies to use the Club for luncheon, a suggestion was made that the membership be advised that the Club could use more...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Gould v. United States, Civ. No. 6131
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado
    • September 28, 1960
    ...construing these statutes and regulations is that each case is sui generis. Downtown Club of Dallas v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 240 F.2d 159; Tidwell v. Anderson, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1933 4 F.Supp. 789, 791; Rockefeller Center Luncheon Club v. Johnson, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1955, 131 F.Supp. 703. Nearly......
  • United States v. Howe, 19732.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • October 25, 1965
    ...is a social club, even though it has other important objectives and activities." Downtown Club of Dallas v. United States, 5 Cir. 1957, 240 F.2d 159, 163. In fact, a club may be held to be "social" for the purposes of the taxing statute, although it has a different predominant purpose, if t......
  • Down Town Ass'n of City of New York v. United States, 191
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 2, 1960
    ...See Rockefeller Center Luncheon Club v. Johnson, D.C.S. D.N.Y., 131 F.Supp. 703; cf. Downtown Club of Dallas v. United States, 5 Cir., 240 F.2d 159; Century Ass'n v. Anderson, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1935, 10 F.Supp. 1005. We consider, therefore, only those cases which have spoken to the precise point ......
  • United States v. McIntyre, 7535.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • March 27, 1958
    ...1 Cir., 166 F.2d 877; Duquesne Club v. Bell, 3 Cir., 127 F.2d 363, 143 A.L.R. 1377; Downtown Club of Dallas v. United States, 5 Cir., 240 F.2d 159. It is apparent that what seems to be the basic misconception of the taxpayer is the product of an elevation of the worthy motives of the promot......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Gould v. United States, Civ. No. 6131
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado
    • September 28, 1960
    ...construing these statutes and regulations is that each case is sui generis. Downtown Club of Dallas v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 240 F.2d 159; Tidwell v. Anderson, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1933 4 F.Supp. 789, 791; Rockefeller Center Luncheon Club v. Johnson, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1955, 131 F.Supp. 703. Nearly......
  • United States v. Howe, 19732.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • October 25, 1965
    ...is a social club, even though it has other important objectives and activities." Downtown Club of Dallas v. United States, 5 Cir. 1957, 240 F.2d 159, 163. In fact, a club may be held to be "social" for the purposes of the taxing statute, although it has a different predominant purpose, if t......
  • Down Town Ass'n of City of New York v. United States, 191
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 2, 1960
    ...See Rockefeller Center Luncheon Club v. Johnson, D.C.S. D.N.Y., 131 F.Supp. 703; cf. Downtown Club of Dallas v. United States, 5 Cir., 240 F.2d 159; Century Ass'n v. Anderson, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1935, 10 F.Supp. 1005. We consider, therefore, only those cases which have spoken to the precise point ......
  • United States v. McIntyre, 7535.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • March 27, 1958
    ...1 Cir., 166 F.2d 877; Duquesne Club v. Bell, 3 Cir., 127 F.2d 363, 143 A.L.R. 1377; Downtown Club of Dallas v. United States, 5 Cir., 240 F.2d 159. It is apparent that what seems to be the basic misconception of the taxpayer is the product of an elevation of the worthy motives of the promot......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT