In re Goldstein

Decision Date13 November 1935
Citation13 F. Supp. 991
PartiesIn re GOLDSTEIN.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Benjamin Siegel, of New York City, for trustee.

Paul Windels, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (James J. McGowan, of New York City, of counsel), for claimant, City of New York.

GODDARD, District Judge.

Petition to review an order of the referee in bankruptcy disallowing a preferred claim of the city of New York against the bankrupt estate for $71.56. The trustee in bankruptcy has consented to the allowance of the claim as a general one for $68.15, which is the amount of the claim exclusive of a penalty of $3.41, which concededly the claimant may not have; so the question now presented is whether the claim is entitled to priority in payment.

The city of New York filed a proof of debt for $71.56 under section 7 of Local Law 20 of 1934 (city of New York), as amended by Local Law 24 of 1934 (city of New York) which imposes a tax on retail sales and is generally known as the Retail Sales Tax Law.1

The city of New York contends that the bankrupt estate is liable for this amount as taxes because Goldstein, the bankrupt, who was a wholesale dealer in shoes, failed to collect the sales tax from purchasers or obtain the certificates provided for by section 2 of the Retail Sales Tax Law, and that it is a preferred claim. The tax and penalty were assessed subsequent to the filing of the petition in bankruptcy.

Section 2 of the Retail Sales Tax Law is entitled "Imposition of tax" and the pertinent part provides as follows:

"Upon each taxable sale or service the tax to be collected shall be stated and charged separately from the sale price or charge for service and shown separately on any record thereof, at the time when the sale is made or evidence of sale issued or employed by the vendor and shall be paid by the purchaser to the vendor, for and on account of the city of New York, and the vendor shall be liable for the collection or the service rendered; and the vendor shall have the same right in respect to collecting the tax from the purchaser, or in respect to non-payment of the tax by the purchaser, as if the tax were a part of the purchase price of the property or service and payable at the time of the sale. * * *

"For the purpose of the proper administration of this local law and to prevent evasion of the tax hereby imposed, it shall be presumed that all receipts for property and services mentioned in this section are subject to the tax until the contrary is established, and the burden of proving that a receipt is not taxable hereunder shall be upon the vendor or the purchaser, unless the vendor shall have taken from the purchaser a certificate signed by and bearing the name and address of the purchaser and the number of his registration certificate to the effect that the property or service was purchased for resale."

Section 3 of the law provides for the collection of tax from the purchaser and is entitled "Collection of tax from Purchaser." Section 14 reads: "A vendor shall refuse to accept a certificate that any property or service upon which a tax is imposed by this local law is purchased for resale and shall collect the tax imposed by this local law unless the purchaser shall have filed a certificate of registration and received a certificate of authority to collect the tax imposed by this local law; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • In re National Studios, 171.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 14, 1941
    ...& Ohio R. R. Co., 17 Wall. 322, 21 L.Ed. 597; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. York Silk Mfg. Co., 3 Cir., 192 F. 81; In re Goldstein, D.C., 13 F.Supp. 991; In re Waller, D.C., 142 F. 883. These local laws are all substantially alike except that the 1938 law, which became effective on July 1......
  • In re Lazaroff, 462.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • July 6, 1936
    ...or a claim by a person who, under the laws of the State of New York, is entitled to a priority." The court below followed In re Goldstein, 13 F.Supp. 991 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.) which relied on Nolte v. Hudson Nav. Co., 8 F. (2d) 859 (C.C.A. 2), as establishing that the claims of the city against th......

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