Fresh Meadow Country Club v. United States, 6144.
Decision Date | 04 December 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 6144.,6144. |
Citation | 17 F. Supp. 400 |
Parties | FRESH MEADOW COUNTRY CLUB, Inc., v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Baar, Bennett & Fullen, of New York City (Emil N. Baar and John P. Hurley, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Leo J. Hickey, U. S. Atty., and John G. Dalton, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Brooklyn, N. Y., Robert H. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Andrew D. Sharpe and Francis I. Howley, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen.
The plaintiff, a corporation organized under the membership law of the state of New York, sets forth in its complaint that in February, 1929, Walter E. Corwin, then collector of internal revenue for the First collection district of New York, acting under section 501(a) of the Revenue Act of 1926 (26 U.S.C.A. § 950 note) demanded that the plaintiff pay over to him a tax at the rate of 10 per cent. upon the money paid by the members in response to a request for contribution made by the finance committee of the club. To avoid distraint, but under protest, the plaintiff on March 6, 1929, paid the collector the sum of $2,925, representing 10 per cent. of the amount thus contributed. This action brought by the plaintiff is based on a claim for a refund of that sum and for the refund of $10 paid in the nature of an offer of compromise for any accrued penalty.
It is alleged by way of defense that the sums paid by the members were not voluntary contributions but an assessment.
The Revenue Act of 1926, c. 27, 44 Stat. 92, § 501, provides:
On March 31, 1927, at a regular meeting of the board of governors of the club, the following resolution was adopted: "On motion of Mr. Julius J. Kauder, member of the Finance Committee, it was unanimously resolved, that the Finance Committee be authorized to request each member to make a voluntary contribution of the sum of $100.00 payable in two instalments of $50.00 each on May 1st and September 1st, with the understanding that if any member declined to make said contribution, no charge be made against him therefor."
The minutes of a special meeting held on April 11, 1927, record that:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Louisville Country Club, Inc. v. Gray, Civ. No. 3692.
...758. This case was decided by this Court in 1937 and is one of three cases so holding, the others being Fresh Meadow Country Club v. United States, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1937, 17 F.Supp. 400, and Garden City Golf Club v. Corwin, 2 Cir., 62 F.2d 246, decided in 1932 and cited and relied upon in both o......
-
NLRB v. Food Fair Stores, Inc.
...1568 (1943); Merion Cricket Club v. United States, 315 U.S. 42, 43, 62 S.Ct. 430, 86 L.Ed. 656 (1942). 8 Fresh Meadow Country Club v. United States, 17 F.Supp. 400, 401 (E.D.N.Y. 1936). Actually the definition is quoted from Thompson v. Wyandanch Club, 70 Misc. 299, 127 N.Y.S. 195, 9 Arbitr......
-
Merion Cricket Club v. United States, 7441.
...3 Masonic Country Club v. Holden, 6 Cir., 18 F.2d 553. 4 Garden City Club v. Corwin, 2 Cir., 62 F.2d 246. Cf. Fresh Meadow Country Club v. United States, D.C., 17 F.Supp. 400, 401. 5 26 U.S.C.A. Internal Revenue Code, § 1712 (a) and § 1712 6 Taxation — Federal Excise Tax on Club Dues or Mem......
-
City Athletic Club v. United States
...voluntary and not assessments within the meaning of the Act. The language of the opinion, followed in Fresh Meadow Country Club, Inc., v. U.S., D.C.E.D.N.Y., 17 F.Supp. 400 and Pendennis Club v. U. S., D.C. W.D.Ky., 20 F.Supp. 758, makes the deciding factor enforceability of the assessment ......