Lewis v. United States, No. 12009.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation214 F.2d 853
Decision Date10 June 1954
Docket NumberNo. 12009.
PartiesLEWIS v. UNITED STATES.

214 F.2d 853 (1954)

LEWIS
v.
UNITED STATES.

No. 12009.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 24, 1954.

Decided June 10, 1954.


Mr. Walter E. Gallagher, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Myron G. Ehrlich, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Lewis A. Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Kenneth D. Wood and Alexander L. Stevas, Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, BAZELON and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Municipal Court of Appeals, holding that the occupational tax imposed by Chapter 27A of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 3290 (1952), on the business of accepting wagers, is constitutional in its application to the District of Columbia. United States v. Lewis, D.C.Mun.App.1953, 100 A.2d 40. That decision is clearly correct, in view of United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22, 73 S.Ct. 510, 97 L.Ed. 754, rehearing denied, 1953, 345 U.S. 931, 73 S.Ct. 778, 97 L.Ed. 1360. "Of course Congress may tax what it also forbids." United States v. Stafoff, 1923, 260 U.S. 477 at page 480, 43 S.Ct. 197 at page 199, 67 L.Ed. 358.

Affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Hicks v. District of Columbia, No. 3340.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • February 5, 1964
    ...Theatre Corporation, D.C.Mun.App., 63 A.2d 649 (1948). 2. United States v. Lewis, D.C.Mun.App., 100 A.2d 40, aff'd 94 U.S.App.D.C. 205, 214 F.2d 853, aff'd 348 U.S. 419, 75 S.Ct. 415, 99 L.Ed. 475 (1955). 3. Rogers v. District of Columbia, D.C. Mun.App., 31 A.2d 649 (1943); Thomas v. Distri......
  • Lewis v. United States, No. 203
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 14, 1955
    ...for the District reversed, 100 A.2d 40, and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Municipal Court of Appeals. 94 U.S.App.D.C. 205, 214 F.2d 853. We granted certiorari. 348 U.S. 810, 75 S.Ct. 60. The questions presented in this case are: Does the Act, as applied to the petitioner in the ......
2 cases
  • Hicks v. District of Columbia, No. 3340.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • February 5, 1964
    ...Theatre Corporation, D.C.Mun.App., 63 A.2d 649 (1948). 2. United States v. Lewis, D.C.Mun.App., 100 A.2d 40, aff'd 94 U.S.App.D.C. 205, 214 F.2d 853, aff'd 348 U.S. 419, 75 S.Ct. 415, 99 L.Ed. 475 (1955). 3. Rogers v. District of Columbia, D.C. Mun.App., 31 A.2d 649 (1943); Thomas v. Distri......
  • Lewis v. United States, No. 203
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 14, 1955
    ...for the District reversed, 100 A.2d 40, and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Municipal Court of Appeals. 94 U.S.App.D.C. 205, 214 F.2d 853. We granted certiorari. 348 U.S. 810, 75 S.Ct. 60. The questions presented in this case are: Does the Act, as applied to the petitioner in the ......

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