In re New York, O. & W. Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 03 December 1937 |
Citation | 25 F. Supp. 709 |
Parties | In re NEW YORK, O. & W. RY. CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Paul Windels, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Oscar S. Cox and Meyer Bernstein, both of New York City, of counsel), for City of New York.
Elbert N. Oakes, of New York City, for trustee.
The Trustee of the Debtor, by this application, seeks to have this Court determine, under Section 64a of the National Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 104 (a), whether the Debtor is liable for a utility tax imposed by the City of New York, and if so, that this Court review, revise and fix the Debtor's liability therefor.
Pursuant to enabling legislation of the State of New York (Chapter 815, Laws of 1933; Chapters 302 and 873, Laws of 1934; Chapter 601, Laws of 1935; Chapter 414, Laws of 1936; Chapter 327, Laws of 1937), the Municipal Assembly of the City of New York adopted certain Local Laws imposing taxes at the rate of 1½% (later increased to 3%) upon the gross income of certain utilities as therein defined covering the period subsequent to September 1, 1933, which are by statute to be devoted exclusively to the relief of the needy unemployed. The constitutionality and validity thereof have heretofore been sustained in both State and Federal Courts. New York Steam Corporation v. City of New York, 1935, 268 N.Y. 137, 197 N.E. 172, 99 A.L.R. 1157; Southern Boulevard Railroad Company v. City of New York, 2 Cir., 1936, 86 F.2d 633, certiorari denied May 24, 1937, 301 U.S. 703, 57 S.Ct. 932, 81 L.Ed. 1357.
The pertinent provisions of Local Law No. 30, of 1935, p. 157, which are representative of all the local laws concerned, read as follows:
Section 6 provides for:
1. Notification to the Debtor by the comptroller of his determination of tax liability;
2. Application within thirty days thereafter to the comptroller for a hearing;
3. Presentation to the comptroller of evidence in support of the Debtor's contentions as to tax liability;
4. Final notice of determination by comptroller; and
5. Judicial review thereof.
Section 6, in part, reads as follows:
In accordance with these statutes, the New York, Ontario & Western Railroad Company filed returns with the Comptroller of the City of New York. These returns contained no figures but in lieu thereof it was stated: "Counsel advises we have no gross income from business conducted wholly within the City of New York."
No tax has been paid to the City.
On July 2, 1936, the Comptroller made a determination of deficiency in tax and penalties under Local Law No. 19 of 1933, p. 127, for the period Sept. 1, 1933 to Feb. 28, 1934, amounting to $1,425.03; under Local Law No. 10 of 1934, p. 115, for the period from March 1, 1934 to Dec. 31, 1934 amounting to $2,869.18; under Local Law No. 21 (published as No. 22) of 1934, p. 151, for the period from Jan. 1, 1935 to Dec. 31, 1935 amounting to $6,814.86, which, with penalties thereon, amounted to a total sum of $12,940.06.
In compliance with the statute, the Railroad Company protested the determination within the thirty day period and applied for a hearing and such hearing was held before the Comptroller's representative. The Railroad Company appeared and offered testimony in support of its contention that it was not liable for the tax as determined by the Comptroller. No further action was taken by the Comptroller with respect thereto for several months.
Meanwhile the Debtor, which is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, having its principal place of business at 370 Lexington Avenue, Borough of Manhattan, New York City, N. Y., engaged for many years as a common carrier in the transportation of persons and property in the States of New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, on May 20th, 1937, filed a petition in proceedings for reorganization pursuant to the provisions of Section 77 of the National Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. A. § 205. The petition was duly approved on that date and Frederic E. Lyford was thereafter appointed Trustee by order dated June 15, 1937, and qualified as such.
Subsequent thereto, the Comptroller of the City of New York, without having made any decision upon said protest and hearing upon the tax for the period ending December 31, 1935, determined the tax due under Local Law No. 30 of 1935, p. 157, for the period from Jan. 1, 1936 to June 30, 1936, in the amount of $3,401.13, and under Local Law No. 30 of 1936, p. 137, from July 1, 1936 to May 30, 1937, in the amount of $6,057.62, with penalties thereon aggregating $1,020.99, and on August 31, 1937, filed proof of claim with the Secretary of the Debtor for the entire sum claimed to be due in the amount of $24,995.59, including the said sum of $12,940.06 as determined July 2, 1936, with the additional penalties thereon claimed to have accrued since the previous determination.
The Debtor likewise protested this further determination and applied to the Comptroller on September 2, 1937, for a hearing which was fixed for October 7, 1937, but at the Debtor's request was adjourned to November 8, 1937.
Meanwhile, objections and amended objections to the City's claim was filed in this proceeding.
By direction of this Court, the Trustee of the Debtor, on October 22, 1937, presented a report and recommendations upon all claims of creditors filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boston and Maine Corp., In re
...not decided the issue, the lower courts have held the provisions of section 64 apply in railroad reorganizations. In re New York, O. & W. Ry. Co., 25 F.Supp. 709 (S.D.N.Y.1937); 5 Collier on Bankruptcy p 77.21 (14th ed.).2 During the first half of this century prepetition tax claims were aw......
-
In re Lasky
...4 Cir., 43 F.2d 670 16 A.B.R.,N.S., 359; In re Florence Commercial Co., 9 Cir., 19 F.2d 468 10 A.B.R., N.S., 284; In re New York O. & W. Ry. Co., D.C.N.Y., 25 F.Supp. 709 39 A.B.R., N.S., 606; In re Bradley, D.C. N.Y., 16 F.2d 301 9 A.B.R.,N.S., 269. "And the power to re-examine the assessm......
-
Arkansas Corporation Commission v. Thompson
...685; City of Springfield v. Hotel Charles Co., 1 Cir., 84 F.2d 589; In re A. V. Manning's Sons, D.C., 16 F.Supp. 932; In re New York, O. & W. Ry., D.C., 25 F.Supp. 709; Texas Co. v. Blue Way Lines, 1 Cir., 93 F.2d 593; Henderson County v. Wilkins, 4 Cir., 43 F.2d 670. And see Finletter, The......
-
In re Raflowitz, 19893.
...36 F.2d 218; Henderson County v. Wilkins, 4 Cir., 43 F.2d 670; In re Florence Commercial Co., 9 Cir., 19 F.2d 468; In re New York, O. & W. Ry. Co., D.C., 25 F.Supp. 709; In re Bradley, D.C., 16 F.2d And the power to re-examine the assessment is not confined to cases involving state taxes; i......