MK HOKE v. United States, 2539.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Southern District of West Virginia
Citation215 F. Supp. 942
Docket NumberNo. 2539.,2539.
PartiesM. K. HOKE et al., v. UNITED STATES of America.
Decision Date15 February 1963

215 F. Supp. 942

M. K. HOKE et al.,

No. 2539.

United States District Court S. D. West Virginia,

February 15, 1963.

J. Campbell Palmer, III, Charleston, W. Va., for plaintiffs.

Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Harry G. Camper, Jr., U. S. Atty., Charleston, W. Va., for defendant.

FIELD, Chief Judge.

The taxpayer, J. Campbell Palmer, III, together with the other plaintiffs, instituted this action to recover certain excise taxes assessed and paid upon dues and fees incident to their membership in Sleepy Hollow Golf Club. The Government filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint herein which motion was granted by order entered January 10, 1962. That order extended to the plaintiffs the right to amend, and an amended complaint was filed on January 23, 1962, to which the Government has filed its answer. Contending that there is no genuine issue of any material fact in regard to that phase of the action which seeks recovery for the tax assessed and paid for locker space in the club, the plaintiff, J. Campbell Palmer, III, has moved for partial summary judgment. The Government has filed its cross motion for summary judgment relative to this same aspect of the litigation.

It appears to me that no genuine issue exists with respect to any facts material to the disposition of these motions, and upon consideration of the motions the facts are found to be as follows: The taxpayer is a resident of West Virginia and Sleepy Hollow Golf Club is a nonprofit West Virginia corporation. The club maintains a golf course, swimming pool and clubhouse including locker room facilities near Hurricane in Putnam County, West Virginia. After erection of the clubhouse, Palmer agreed to rent from the club a space approximately 2 × 2½ feet, upon which he placed a locker purchased by him. An agreed annual rental was paid for this space, the rental paid to the club for locker space during the year 1956 amounting to $36.00. An excise tax was assessed on this payment on April 17, 1959, and taxpayer paid the assessment on May 13, 1959. Timely claim for refund was filed on November 20, 1959, and the taxpayer's claim was rejected by the Internal Revenue Service on May 4, 1960. Thereafter this action was instituted.

It would appear and, in fact, the taxpayer agreed upon the argument of this motion that the rental of space upon which to place a locker rather than the rental of a locker already installed is of no material...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Epstein v. United States
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • March 18, 1966
    ...Club v. United States, 179 F.Supp. 377 (D.N.J., 1959); Cohan v. United States, 198 F.Supp. 591 (E.D.Mich., 1961); Hoke v. United States, 215 F.Supp. 942 (S.D.W.Va., 1963). 5 That section exempts from income tax "Clubs organized and operated exclusively for pleasure, recreation, and other no......
  • United States v. Howe
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • October 25, 1965
    ...the "sport of golf as well as for the later `social' or `sporting' privileges made available by the Club." See also Hoke v. United States, S.D. W.Va.1963, 215 F.Supp. 942. We conclude (1) that appellee taxpayer has failed to sustain his burden of showing that the Balboa Yacht Club was not a......
  • Hoke v. United States, 2539.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Southern District of West Virginia
    • September 12, 1967
  • Johnston v. United States
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • March 27, 1964
    ...White v. Winchester Club, 315 U.S. 32, 62 S.Ct. 425, 86 L.Ed. 619; Boyden v. U. S., D.C. Mass., 218 F.Supp. 220; Hoke v. U. S., S.D.W.Va., 215 F.Supp. 942. There is no doubt that on the facts stipulated in this case that the right of the taxpayer to use the bowling facilities on 26 specific......

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