Proprietors of Cemetery of Mt. Auburn v. Massachusetts Unemployment Comp. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 15 September 1938
• Citation: 301 Mass. 211,16 N.E.2d 666
• Parties: PROPRIETORS OF CEMETERY OF MT. AUBURN v. MASSACHUSETTS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

301 Mass. 211

16 N.E.2d 666

PROPRIETORS OF CEMETERY OF MT. AUBURN

v.MASSACHUSETTS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Sept. 15, 1938.

Reservation and Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.

Suit by the Proprietors of the Cemetery of Mount Auburn against the Massachusetts Unemployment Compensation Commission to enjoin the defendant from collecting contributions and enforcing penalties under the Unemployment Compensation Law and to recover contributions paid by the plaintiff under protest to avoid penalties. The case was heard by a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court by whom it was reserved and reported without decision on the amended bill of complaint, the supplemental bill of complaint, the answer and statement of agreed facts for determination of the full court.

Bill dismissed.J. Noble, C. M. Storey, and A. H. Morse, all of Boston, for plaintiff.

J. J. Ronan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

DOLAN, Justice.

This is a suit in equity wherein the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendants from collecting contributions and enforcing penalties under the provisions of the unemployment compensation law, G.L. c. 151A, as it appears in St.1935, c. 479, § 5, and St.1937, c. 421, and to recover contributions paid by the plaintiff under protest to avoid penalties. The case was heard by a single justice of this court, who reserved and reported the same, without decision, upon ‘the amended bill of complaint, the supplemental bill of complaint, the answer and statement of agreed facts for determination of the Full Court.’

The plaintiff contends that the contributions made by it under protest were illegally exacted because they come within the exemption set forth in c. 151A, § 1(f)(7), as it appears in St.1937, c. 421, by which section the term ‘employment’ does not apply to ‘Service performed in the employ of a corporation * * * organized and operated exclusively for a religious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational purpose, or for the purpose of the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, or for any combination of such purposes.’

By the allegations of its bill the plaintiff seeks to justify its standing in equity upon the ground that it has no adequate remedy at law, in that the governing statute provides no method by which it may recover payments erroneously exacted by the defendant.

In its amended bill the plaintiff relies upon the provisions of G.L. c. 151A, as it appears in St.1937, c. 421. It follows that, in considering the plaintiff's standing in equity, to obtain the relief sought chapter 151A must be considered in its form as appearing in St.1937, c. 421. See Atlantic Pharmacal Co. v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation, Mass., 2 N.E.2d 474.

At the outset it is clear that the plaintiff seeks to bring itself within an exemption contained in a statute that has already been determined to be fundamentally a tax statute. See Howes Brothers Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, Mass., 5 N.E.2d 720. See also Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495, 508, 57 S.Ct. 868, 871, 81 L.Ed. 1245, 109 A.L.R. 1327;Beeland Wholesale Co. v. Kaufman, 234 Ala. 249, 255, 174 So. 516. In the case of Atlantic Pharmacal Co. v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation, Mass., 2 N.E.2d 474, it is said at page 475: ‘The general principle has been repeatedly declared in this commonwealth that a suit in equity will not lie to restrain the collection of a tax. Commonly other remedies, such as abatement, special statutory proceedings, or action to recover a sum unlawfully collected under the guise of a tax, afford ample protection to the taxpayer and are exclusive.’ See, also, Brewer v. Springfield, 97 Mass. 152, 154;Loud v. Charlestown, 99 Mass. 208;McGee v. Salem, 149 Mass. 238, 242, 21 N.E. 386;Wheatland v. Boston, 202 Mass. 258, 259, 88 N.E. 769;International Paper Co. v. Commonwealth, 232 Mass. 7, 10, 121 N.E. 510; Warr v. Collector of Taxes of Taunton, 234 Mass. 279, 282, 283, 125 N.E. 557, and cases cited. In exceptional and extraordinary circumstances where the statutes fail to provide any remedy for the recovery of sums paid under illegal assessments the tax payer may seek relief in...