Kennebec Box Co. v. OS Richards Corporation
| Decision Date | 16 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 188.,188. |
| Parties | KENNEBEC BOX CO., Inc., v. O. S. RICHARDS CORPORATION. UNITED STATES v. JOHNSTON. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Ralph C. Greene, U. S. Atty., and William A. De Groot, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Nelson T. Hartson and Frank J. Ready, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for the United States.
Zalkin & Cohen, of New York City (S. Marshall Kronheimer and Emanuel Fichandler, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before HOUGH, MANTON, and HAND, Circuit Judges.
The record before us is an insufficient groundwork for some of the arguments at bar. It is impossible to argue therefrom that the United States has or ever had a lien upon any fund in respect of these taxes, or any of them, so that R. S. § 3186, as amended (Comp. St. § 5908), may apply. That statute declares that a tax shall be "a lien in favor of the United States from the time when the assessment list was received by the collector," etc. There is no evidence whatever as to when any assessment list was received by anybody. We know nothing except that a demand for some unexplained kind of tax was made by the United States in March, 1923, and that further demands for income taxes were made later.
This estate is not in bankruptcy, but it is insolvent, and therefore R. S. § 3466 (Comp. St. § 6372), is the only available statute. That declares that "whenever any person indebted to the United States is insolvent * * * the debts due to the United States shall be first satisfied." Thus the sole question before us is whether debts of the insolvent secured by no lien shall be paid ahead of expenses created by the receivership, because such debts are for taxes due to the United States. So far as shown, this is the first attempt on the part of the United States to assert a claim for payment out of a fund ahead of the expenses incurred in the production thereof. There being no question of lien before us, we find no rights asserted under any form of execution, as by distress or the like. The United States comes into court and asserts in substance that, when the officers of the court have accumulated a fund insufficient to defray the expenses of its accumulation, the Treasury is entitled to take that fund and leave the court expenses unpaid.
For purposes of argument only it may be admitted that out of any fund available for paying the debts of an insolvent debtor United States taxes are to be paid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.E.C. v. Credit Bancorp, Ltd.
...to that property would take priority over the claim of the United States. See Gov't Mem. at 23; see generally Kennebec Box Co. v. O.S. Richards Corp., 5 F.2d 951, 952 (2d Cir.1925).11 II. Subject Matter A. The Jurisdictional Bar On Actions Seeking To Restrain The Assessment Or Collection Of......
-
U.S. v. Stonehill
...No lien arises in these circumstances. For the same reason the following cases cited by TRNL are inapposite: Kennebec Box v. O.S. Richards Corp., 5 F.2d 951 (2d Cir.1925); In re Holmes Manufacturing Co., 19 F.2d 239 (2d Cir.1927); In re Columbia Ribbon Co., 117 F.2d 999 (3d Cir.1941); Bauer......
-
U.S. v. Idaho Falls Associates Ltd. Partnership
...the Government pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3713. Abrams v. United States, 274 F.2d 8, 12 (8th Cir. 1960). See also, Kennebec Box Co. v. O.S. Richards Corp., 5 F.2d 951 (2d Cir.1925) (holding that the expenses of the receivership were entitled to priority over taxes due the government where the ......
-
Petition of Gilbert Associates
...are commonly considered to come ahead of taxes. Petition of N. H. Structural Steel Co., 90 N.H. 547, 11 A.2d 713; Kennebec Box Co. v. O. S. Richards Corp. 2 Cir., 5 F.2d 951; In re Holmes Mfg. Co., D.C., 19 F.2d 239; Hammond v. Carthage Sulphite Pulp & Paper Co., D.C., 34 F.2d 155. See Unit......
-
Administration of Insolvent Estates in Connecticut
...be inferior to a claim of the federal government. 70. 31 U.S.C. § 3713 (1988 & Supp. 1990). 71. Kennebec Box Co. v. O.S. Richards Corp., 5 F.2d 951 Cir. 1925); United States v. Weisburn, 48 F. Stipp. 393 (E.D. Pa. 1943). 72. Id. See also, Martin v. Dennett, 626 P.2d 473, 475-776 (Utah 1981)......