In re Goldstein
Decision Date | 13 November 1935 |
Citation | 13 F. Supp. 991 |
Parties | In re GOLDSTEIN. |
Court | U.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.
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:
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-
In re National Studios, 171.
...& 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.
...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......