Enochs v. Williams Packing Navigation Co, No. 493

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWARREN
Citation8 L.Ed.2d 292,82 S.Ct. 1125,370 U.S. 1
Decision Date28 May 1962
Docket NumberNo. 493
PartiesJ. L. ENOCHS, District Director of Internal Revenue, Petitioner, v. WILLIAMS PACKING & NAVIGATION CO., Inc

370 U.S. 1
82 S.Ct. 1125
8 L.Ed.2d 292
J. L. ENOCHS, District Director of Internal Revenue, Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAMS PACKING & NAVIGATION CO., Inc.

No. 493.
Argued April 18, 1962.
Decided May 28, 1962.
Rehearing Denied June 25, 1962.

See 370 U.S. 965, 82 S.Ct. 1579.

Louis F. Oberdorfer, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Page 2

George E. Morse, Gulfport, Miss., for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Fearing that the District Director of Internal Revenue for Mississippi would attempt to collect allegedly past due social security and unemployment taxes for the years 1953, 1954 and 1955, respondent, in late 1957, brought suit in the District Court, maintaining that it was not liable for the exactions and seeking an injunction prohibiting their collection. The District Director, petitioner herein, made no objection to the issuance of a preliminary restraining order but resisted a permanent injunction, asserting that the provisions of § 7421(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7421(a) barred any such injunctive proceeding. That section provides:

'Except as provided in sections 6212(a) and (c), and 6213(a), no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court.'

The exception for Tax Court proceedings created by §§ 6212(a) and (c) and 6213(a), 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 6212(a, c), 6213(a) was not applicable because that body is without jurisdiction over taxes of the sort here in issue. Nevertheless, on July 14, 1959, the court, relying upon Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co., 284 U.S. 498, 52 S.Ct. 260, 76 L.Ed. 422, permanently enjoined collection of the taxes on the ground that they were not, in fact, payable and because collection would destroy respondent's business. 176 F.Supp. 168. On June 14, 1961, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, one judge dissenting. 291 F.2d 402. We granted certiorari to determine whether the case came within the scope of this Court's holding in Nut Margarine which indicated that § 7421(a) was not, in the 'special and extraordinary facts and cir-

Page 3

cumstances' of that case,1 intended to apply.2 368 U.S. 937.

Respondent corporation (hereinafter referred to as Williams) is engaged in the business of providing trawlers to fishermen who take shrimp, oysters and fish off the Louisiana and Mississippi coasts. It is the Government's position that these fishermen are the corporation's employees within the meaning of §§ 1426(d)(2) and 1607(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C. (1952 ed.), 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 1426(d)(2) 1607(i), and §§ 3121(d)(2) and 3306(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 3121(d)(2), 3306(i). These sections specifically adopt the common-law test for ascertaining the existence of the employer-employee relationship. As stated in United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704, 716, 67 S.Ct. 1463, 1469, 91 L.Ed. 1757, 'degrees of control, opportunities for profit or loss, investment in facilities, permanency of relation and skill required * * * are important for decision (under these statutes).' If, under the involved circumstances of this case, the fishermen were employees, respondent Williams is admittedly liable for social security and unemployment taxes for the years in question.3

The following facts, material to the question of the existence of the employment relationship, were established. Williams provided its boats to captains which it selected; they employed their own crews and could fire them at will, but the relationship between respondent cor-

Page 4

poration and the fishermen was not ordinarily of short duration. The catch was generally sold to Williams which in turn resold it to the DeJean Packing Co., a partnership closely allied to Williams both by reason of integrated operation and substantially identical ownership. The proceeds, after the deduction of expenses, were divided among the captain, the crew and the boat. Williams received an additional share if it supplied the nets and rigging. It extended credit to the captains and made it possible for them to obtain credit elsewhere, and if a trip was unsuccessful and if the captain or crew members no longer continued to operate a boat, Williams absorbed the loss.

With respect to the existence of a recognized right of control by the employer, as might be expected, the testimony was in conflict. Petitioner introduced evidence to show that Williams could effectively refuse ice to boats and thus determine whether they would go out, that the boats' times of return were sometimes directed by the respondent corporation, that it could dictate the nature of the catch, and that permission was needed to sell the catch to someone other than respondent. And petitioner pointed out that both respondent and its fishermen had for other purposes represented that an employer-employee relationship existed.4 On the other hand, the District Court here found, and the respondent now asserts, that the corporation was wholly without any right of control.

Page 5

Attempting to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
947 practice notes
  • Brewer v. US, No. 90 Civ. 3423 (GLG).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 21 Mayo 1991
    ...we do not find that the judicially created exception to the Anti-Injunction Act is applicable here. In Enochs v. Williams Packing Co., 370 U.S. 1, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962), the Supreme Court held that an injunction may be obtained against the collection of any tax if (1) it is "c......
  • McGlotten v. Connally, Civ. A. No. 3377-70.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 11 Enero 1972
    ...barred by the Tax Injunction Act so too will relief be barred by the Declaratory Judgment Act.23 In Enochs v. Williams Packing & Nav. Co., 370 U.S. 1, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962), the Supreme Court stated the manifest purpose of § 7421(a) is to permit the United States to assess and......
  • Thompson/Center Arms Co. v. Baker, Civ. No. 87-260-D.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of New Hampshire
    • 29 Abril 1988
    ...in a suit for refund.'" Bob Jones, supra, 416 U.S. at 736-37, 94 S.Ct. at 2046 (quoting Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co, 370 U.S. 1, 7, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 1129, 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962)); see also Chandler v. Perini Power Constructors, 520 F.Supp. 1152, 1155 (D.N. H.1981). The Supreme Co......
  • Z St., Inc. v. Koskinen, Civil Action No. 12–cv–0401 KBJ
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 27 Mayo 2014
    ...refund. In this manner the United States is assured of prompt collection of its lawful revenue.Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962) ; see also Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius , –––U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 2582, 183 L.Ed.2d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
950 cases
  • Brewer v. US, No. 90 Civ. 3423 (GLG).
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 21 Mayo 1991
    ...we do not find that the judicially created exception to the Anti-Injunction Act is applicable here. In Enochs v. Williams Packing Co., 370 U.S. 1, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962), the Supreme Court held that an injunction may be obtained against the collection of any tax if (1) it is "c......
  • McGlotten v. Connally, Civ. A. No. 3377-70.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 11 Enero 1972
    ...barred by the Tax Injunction Act so too will relief be barred by the Declaratory Judgment Act.23 In Enochs v. Williams Packing & Nav. Co., 370 U.S. 1, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962), the Supreme Court stated the manifest purpose of § 7421(a) is to permit the United States to assess and......
  • Thompson/Center Arms Co. v. Baker, Civ. No. 87-260-D.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of New Hampshire
    • 29 Abril 1988
    ...in a suit for refund.'" Bob Jones, supra, 416 U.S. at 736-37, 94 S.Ct. at 2046 (quoting Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co, 370 U.S. 1, 7, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 1129, 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962)); see also Chandler v. Perini Power Constructors, 520 F.Supp. 1152, 1155 (D.N. H.1981). The Supreme Co......
  • Z St., Inc. v. Koskinen, Civil Action No. 12–cv–0401 KBJ
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 27 Mayo 2014
    ...refund. In this manner the United States is assured of prompt collection of its lawful revenue.Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962) ; see also Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius , –––U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 2582, 183 L.Ed.2d ......
  • 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