RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Robertson

• Decision Date: 06 January 1936
• Docket Number: No. 3952.,3952.
• Citation: 80 F.2d 966
• Parties: R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. v. ROBERTSON, Collector of Internal Revenue.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

80 F.2d 966 (1936)

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. v. ROBERTSON, Collector of Internal Revenue.^*

No. 3952.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

January 6, 1936.

Alexander H. Sands, of Richmond, Va. (Alexander H. Sands, Jr., of Richmond, Va., on the brief), for appellant.

Joseph M. Jones, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen. (Frank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John MacC. Hudson and Sewall Key, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.

PARKER, Circuit Judge.

The R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, on or about April 5, 1934, withdrew from its bonded warehouse in Winston-Salem, N. C., a quantity of cigarettes for the purpose of export and delivered them to a carrier to be transported to Norfolk, Va. For the purpose of relieving the cigarettes from taxation, an export bond had been executed, conditioned that proof of actual export be shown in accordance with the regulations of the Collector of Customs or that the tax be paid. On the way from Winston-Salem to Norfolk the cigarettes were stolen from the carrier and only a small part of the shipment was recovered and exported. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue notified the company that he would proceed to collect the tax on those not recovered; and a plea on the part of the company to have this tax abated was unsuccessful. The company thereupon filed this suit in the court below asking that the Collector of Internal Revenue be enjoined from collecting the tax. A temporary injunction was denied on the ground that plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law in the right to pay the tax and sue for its recovery, whereupon the company paid the tax and filed a supplemental bill alleging the payment and asking a decree against the collector for the amount thereof. The court dismissed the suit and the company has appealed, contending (1) that there was error in refusing to enjoin the collection of the tax; and (2) that the amended bill should have been entertained as a suit for refund.

The first point is not open to appellant. Since it has paid the tax to the collector, the question as to whether collection should have been enjoined has become moot. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 141 U. S. 696, 12 S.Ct. 103, 35 L.Ed. 906; Little v. Bowers, 134 U.S. 547, 10 S.Ct. 620, 33 L.Ed. 1016; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Eveland (C.C.A.8th) 289 F. 783; Tomboy Gold Mines Co. v. Brown (C.C.A.8th) 74 F. 12; 3 C.J. 361.

The second point is without merit. Section 3226 of the Revised Statutes as amended by the Act of June 6, 1932, § 1103 (a), 47 Stat. 286, 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 1672-1673, provides that no suit or proceedings shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and that no such suit shall be begun before the expiration of six months from the date of filing such claim. Here no claim of the sort required by the statute has been filed. Appellant relies upon the claim for abatement of the tax filed with the Commissioner; but a claim for abatement does not take the place of the claim for refund required by statute, and the necessity of filing such claim is not dispensed with because it may, and probably will, be rejected. United States v. Felt & Tarrant Mfg. Co., 283 U.S. 269, 51 S.Ct. 376, 75 L.Ed. 1025; Rock Island, etc., R. R. v. United States, 254 U.S. 141, 41 S.Ct. 55, 56, 65 L. Ed. 188. As said by Mr. Justice Holmes in the case last cited: "The words of § 3226 also must be taken to mean an appeal after payment, especially in view of § 3228 * * * requiring claims of...