Rafferty v. Smith, Bell Co Same v. Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas Same v. Visayan Refining Co 142, s. 138

Citation66 L.Ed. 208,257 U.S. 226,42 S.Ct. 71
Decision Date05 December 1921
Docket Number140,Nos. 138,s. 138
PartiesRAFFERTY, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. SMITH, BELL & CO., Limited. SAME v. COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS. SAME v. VISAYAN REFINING CO. , and 142
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. Grant T. Trent, of Washington, D. C., and Charles Marvin, of New York City, for petitioner.

Mr. Clarence B. Miller, of Harrisburg, Pa., for respondents.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 227-231 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases turn upon the same question and were argued together. In our view they can be disposed of by applying the Act of Congress, approved June 5, 1920, c. 253, 41 Stat. 1015, 1025, without passing upon any other point.

Acting under ostensible authority of section 1614, Act 2657, philippine Legislature, approved February 24, 1916, and effective July 1 thereafter, the collector of internal revenue for the Philippine Islands levied and collected the taxes here challenged upon the value of certain commodities exported from those Islands by respondents between October 1, 1916, and September 30, 1917.

The Supreme Court of the Islands, gave judgments for the respondents during March, 1920. Petitions for writs of certiorari filed here in September thereafter and within time prescribed by law, were allowed. 254 U. S. 626, 41 Sup. Ct. 62, 65 L. Ed. 445. Act of Congress approved September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. §§ 1225b, 1228a).

Section 1614, Act 2657:

'All merchants not herein specifically exempted shall pay a tax of one per centum on the gross value in money of the commodities, goods, wares, and merchandise sold, bartered, exchanged, or consigned abroad by them, such tax to be based on the actual selling price or value at which the things in question are disposed of or consigned, whether consisting of raw material or of manufactured or partially manufactured products, and whether of domestic or foreign origin. * * *'

Section 11, Act of Congress, approved August 29, 1916 (Autonomy Act) c. 416, 39 Stat. 545 (Comp. St. § 3812b):

'That no export duties shall be levied or collected on exports from the Philippine Islands, but taxes and assessments on property and license fees for franchises, and privileges, and internal taxes, direct or indirect, may be imposed for the purposes of the Philippine government and the provincial and municipal governments thereof, respectively, as may be provided and defined by acts of the Philippine Legislature, and, where necessary to anticipate taxes and revenues, bonds and other obligations may be issued by the Philippine government or any provincial or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • Comptroller of the Treasury v. Glenn L. Martin Co.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • March 31, 1958
    ...The Heinszen case was followed in Chuoco Tiaco v. Forbes, 228 U.S. 549, 33 S.Ct. 585, 57 L.Ed. 960, and in Rafferty v. Smith, Bell 3 Co., 257 U.S. 226, 42 S.Ct. 71, 66 L.Ed. 208. In Chuoco Tiaco v. Forbes, 228 U.S. at page 556, 33 S.Ct. at page 586, Mr. Justice Holmes thus stated the ratifi......
  • Untermyer v. Anderson
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 9, 1928
    ...duties. United States v. Heinszen & Co., 206 U. S. 370, 27 S. Ct. 742, 51 L. Ed. 1098, 11 Ann. Cas. 688. Rafferty v. Smith, Bell & Co., 257 U. S. 226, 42 S. Ct. 71, 66 L. Ed. 208. Liability for taxes under retroactive legislation has been 'one of the notorious incidents of social life.' Sea......
  • National Can Corp. v. State Tax Commission of Md., 29
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1959
    ...The Heinszen case was followed in Chuoco Tiaco v. Forbes, 228 U.S. 549, 33 S.Ct. 585, 57 L.Ed. 960, and in Rafferty v. Smith, Bell & Co., 257 U.S. 226, 42 S.Ct. 71, 66 L.Ed. 208. In Chuoco Tiaco v. Forbes, 228 U.S. at page 556, 33 S.Ct. at page 586, Mr. Justice Holmes thus stated the ratifi......
  • De Rodulfa v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • March 24, 1972
    ...U.S. at 19-20, 42 S.Ct. 258, 66 L.Ed. 437 (exertion of power of eminent domain in the public interest); Rafferty v. Smith, Bell & Co., 257 U.S. 226, 232, 42 S.Ct. 71, 66 L.Ed. 208 (1921) (restitution of taxes allegedly illegally collected); Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., sup......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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