MARYLAND JOCKEY CLUB v. United States
Decision Date | 20 October 1953 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 5966. |
Citation | 118 F. Supp. 349 |
Parties | MARYLAND JOCKEY CLUB OF BALTIMORE CITY v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, Richard W. Case and Lawrence Perin, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.
Bernard J. Flynn, U. S. Atty., and Paul C. Wolman, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., for United States.
The question presented for decision is: did the $75,608.66 which was received by the plaintiff on November 29, 1948, from the Maryland State Racing Commission as a reimbursement of the cost of rebuilding plaintiff's racing strip at Pimlico Race Course, Baltimore, constitute income subject to federal income tax?
In its income tax return for the fiscal year ending November 30, 1948, plaintiff included this sum as gross income representing "withdrawal from Maryland Racing Commission Fund", but subsequently asserted that this was an error and thereupon filed a claim for refund of tax resulting therefrom in the amount of $28,731.29, and interest, which the Commissioner rejected. The present suit is for refund of this tax so assessed.
The payment in question to the plaintiff was made pursuant to two Acts of the Maryland Legislature, only the parts pertinent to the present issue being quoted. The first is Section 11 of Chapter 3, Laws of Maryland, Extraordinary Session, 1946, as follows: * * *."
The second is section 11A of Chapter 502, Laws of Maryland, 1947, the pertinent parts of which are as follows:
* * *"
Both of these enactments, with some later amendments, are presently codified as Sections 11 and 12 of Article 78B of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1951. These enactments followed a series of resolutions passed by the Racing Commission which, in turn, were based upon two main circumstances: (1) the Commission felt it desirable to inquire particularly into just how the various tracks in Maryland were spending the funds that had been allotted to them; and (2) the tracks, in turn, wanted greater allowances. It is not necessary to give the full, chronological history of the action taken by the Racing Commission leading up to the establishment of the Racing Fund referred to in the second of the two enactments just quoted. Suffice it to quote merely the following resolution of the Maryland Racing Commission, passed on April 29, 1944, as follows: "Be it resolved that the Commission's Resolution of July 5, 1938, authorizing a 1% additional take by the four major Racing Associations, be, and the same are hereby rescinded.
As a result of this action by the Racing Commission, the General Assembly of Maryland in 1945 enacted legislation consonant therewith which, with amendments, became the enactments which we have heretofore quoted. See Laws of Maryland 1945, Chapter 961, Sections 11 and 11A. By this legislation, 90 per cent of the money obtained by the tracks from betting was required to be held for the benefit of those who placed the bets; 5½ per cent of it was to go to the tracks; and four per cent as tax payable to the Racing Commission—a total of 99½ per cent. The balance of one-half per cent is the amount required to be deposited in the Racing Fund to the order of the Racing Commission.
As a result of damage caused by heavy rains to the racing strip at the Pimlico Course, plaintiff determined that it would be necessary to make capital expenditures to rebuild the strip. On July 28, 1948, plaintiff so notified the Maryland Racing Commission, and on August 31, 1948, the President and Secretary of the plaintiff appeared before the Commission, and the latter's minutes show that the request of the plaintiff to rebuild the strip at an estimated cost of $70,000 was approved, "payment to be made from the Racing Fund after the work has been completed and bills have been presented to the Commission and approved." The work was completed before the end of the plaintiff's fiscal year (November 30, 1948), and before that time plaintiff received from the Maryland Racing Commission a check for $75,608.66 as reimbursement for its expenditures for the work, pursuant to bills, invoices and receipts showing plaintiff's payment of same, all of which had been submitted to the Commission. This reimbursement to plaintiff was made by the Commission out of funds which had been deducted from money wagered at Pimlico and remitted by the plaintiff to the Commission, and which the Commission deposited in the Racing Fund as required by law, as hereinbefore set forth.
This was the first payment that had ever been made to plaintiff as reimbursement out of any funds that it had deducted from money wagered at Pimlico and had deposited in the Racing Fund. The expenses of rebuilding the racing strip were capitalized on plaintiff's books in the fiscal year ending November 30, 1948; they were added to plaintiff's base for depreciation on its capital assets, and plaintiff claimed, and was allowed depreciation for federal and state income tax purposes on its fixed assets in the fiscal year ended November 30,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Maryland Jockey Club, 6712.
...it from the Racing Commission. Our answer is in the affirmative. From the opinion of the District Judge in this case, we quote 118 F. Supp. 349, 351: "There appears to be no reported decision on facts closely akin to those in the present case. However, we believe that the situation presente......
-
Maryland Jockey Club of Baltimore City v. United States
...125 (D.C.Md.1954), aff. 227 F.2d 200 (4 Cir. 1955); United States v. Maryland Jockey Club, 210 F.2d 367 (4 Cir. 1954), reversing 118 F.Supp. 349 (D.C.Md.1953), cert. denied 347 U.S. 1014, 74 S.Ct. 869, 98 L.Ed. 3 Acts of 1953, ch. 422, now codified as Art. 78B, sec. 12(c) of Annotated Code ......
-
Southern Maryland Agricultural Ass'n v. United States, 6583.
... ... S. v. Maryland Jockey Club of Baltimore City, 4 Cir., 210 F.2d 367, reversing, D.C., 118 F.Supp. 349, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 1014, 74 S.Ct. 869 ... ...
- United States v. Pua