Philadelphia, H. & P. R. Co. v. Lederer
| Decision Date | 26 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | 2226. |
| Citation | 242 F. 492 |
| Parties | PHILADELPHIA, H. & P.R. CO. v. LEDERER, Collector of Internal Revenue. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Wm. C Mason, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff in error.
Edward S. Kremp and Francis Fisher Kane, both of Philadelphia, Pa for defendant in error.
Before BUFFINGTON, McPHERSON, and WOOLLEY, Circuit Judges.
The satisfactory opinion of Judge Thompson (239 F. 184) relieves us from discussing nearly all the questions raised by this writ of error. We concede the force of the company's argument that in substance, and especially in practical effect, suits such as this are against the collector as an official rather than as an individual-- his personal liability is rarely, if ever, enforced-- and it may be that Congress might with safety and propriety extend the existing law to cover the situation now presented. But, until the change be actually made, we are bound by the law as it stands, and we see no reason to doubt that the statutes and decisions now in force prevent the company from recovering in this action for the taxes collected by William McCoach, the defendant's predecessor in office. No suit to recover them had been brought against McCoach, and for this reason the act of 1899 does not apply.
We need hardly say that without statutory permission no suit to recover a federal tax can be maintained. Moreover, the statutes on this subject must be strictly obeyed; they lay down the conditions and limitations under which the sovereign consents to be sued and this consent should not be enlarged by construction. We turn for a few moments to the act of 1899, since this seems to be the company's principal reliance. Some additional facts should first be stated in order to make the position clear. The company paid the tax for 1909 in June, 1910, the tax for 1910 in June, 1911, and the tax for 1911 in June, 1912. These taxes were paid under protest to McCoach, who remained in office until October 7, 1913. During his term-- namely, in June, 1912, January, 1913, and May, 1913, respectively-- the company claimed the refund of these three taxes; and in June, 1913, it also presented a petition to abate the tax of 1912, apparently on the ground that penalties had been incurred in addition to the tax, although we do not precisely know what abatement was asked for. The claim for the refund of the tax for 1909 was rejected by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on July 15, 1912, but apparently the subsequent claims for refund of the taxes of 1910 and 1911, and also the petition for abatement in connection with the tax for 1912, were not disposed of until February, 1914.
On October 22, 1913, after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davidson v. Rafferty
...66 L. Ed. 99; Detroit Hotel Co. v. Brady (D. C.) 275 F. 995. The basis of the suit is the receipt of the payment of tax, Phila. R. Co. v. Lederer (C. C. A.) 242 F. 492, on the theory that the collector had some agency in the subject-matter, Levy v. Wardell, 258 U. S. 542, 42 S. Ct. 395, 66 ......
-
Huss v. Smith
...§ 3772(a) (2); Third National Bank & Trust Co. of Springfield, Mass. v. White, D.C.D.Mass.1932, 58 F.2d 411; Philadelphia H. & P. R. Co. v. Lederer, 3 Cir., 1917, 242 F. 492; and Toledo Railways & Light Co. v. McMaken, D.C.N.D.Ohio 1936, 17 F.Supp. 338, with Section 3770 (b) of the 1939 Int......
-
Toledo Rys. & Light Co. v. McMaken
...counsel had available as early as the fall of 1917 — before, even, Niles was substituted for McMaken — the decision (Philadelphia, H. & P. R. Co. v. Lederer, 242 F. 492) of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirming Judge Thompson in the Lederer Case on the precise point that the Act of F......
-
Routzahn v. Reeves Bros. Co.
...1, 4, 42 S. Ct. 1, 66 L. Ed. 99; Union Trust Co. v. Wardell, 258 U. S. 537, 542, 42 S. Ct. 393, 66 L. Ed. 753; Phila., H. & P. R. Co. v. Lederer, 242 F. 492, 494 (C. C. A. 3); Coffey, Coll., v. Exchange Bank of Lennox, 296 F. 807, 809 (C. C. A. 8). In support of its contention appellee cite......