Robique v. Lambert
| Decision Date | 09 July 1953 |
| Docket Number | 3842.,Civ. A. No. 3825 |
| Parties | ROBIQUE v. LAMBERT. KAPSOS v. LAMBERT. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
G. Wray Gill and Gerard H. Schreiber, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs.
John N. McKay, U. S. Atty., G. Harrison Scott, Asst. U. S. Atty. and Francis A. Ledet, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for defendants.
By these suits complainants seek to restrain and enjoin the United States Director of Internal Revenue of the State of Louisiana, and his subordinates, from levying and collecting, under the provisions of Section 3267 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 3267, a special tax of $250 per year on each of certain coin operated pinball machines, located in bar-restaurants owned and operated by complainants.
Complainants allege that they have paid a special tax of $10 per year on each such machine, this being the tax fixed by the Statute for coin operated amusement devices, but notwithstanding that they have paid the special tax of $10 per year, respondent, through his subordinates, has demanded that complainants pay a tax of $250, per year, per machine, which is the tax levied by the Statute on slot machines, and has threatened to issue warrants of distraint to effect collection of the tax.
Complainants allege further that the demand for the higher tax is based upon an enlargement by respondent of the definition of the term slot machine as contained in the Statute by adding thereto the words "and other gaming device".
They contend that the assessment of the higher tax, and demand for payment thereof under threat of seizure is punitive, arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory, and in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, Amend. 5. They allege want of an adequate remedy at law, and irreparable injury, and pray for injunctive relief.
Respondent has moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground that because of the provisions of Section 3653, Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 3653, this Court is without jurisdiction.
The motions to dismiss were submitted by respective counsel, for decision, on briefs, and on May 11, 1953, after due consideration, it seeming clear to the Court that they were well founded, the motions to dismiss were granted, and orders entered dismissing the suits, with the statement that written reasons would be subsequently filed.
The pertinent portion of Section 3653, Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 3653, reads as follows:
These suits do not fall within the provisions of any of the excepted Sections. All of such Sections have to do with petitions to the Tax Court of the United States.
Long before the adoption of Revised Statute, § 3224 from which Section 3653(a) Revenue Code is derived, courts of equity declined to entertain suits for relief against the erroneous or illegal assessment and collection of taxes. Revised Statute, § 3224 merely crystallized that rule into positive law.
Complainants recognize the general rule laid down by Section 3653, but say that it is not a hard and fast one, and that in exceptional circumstances the courts may take jurisdiction and grant such relief as is here sought. Briefly, the exceptional circumstances alleged to exist here are that complainants are unable to pay the tax demanded, and that the action of respondent will give rise to a multiplicity of suits in that complainants will be required to file several suits to obtain refund of such taxes as may unlawfully be collected from them.
Although complainants plead their inability to pay the tax it is plain from the pleadings that what they mean...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lassoff v. Gray
...United States, 8 Cir., 280 F.2d 89. Plaintiffs contend that such a procedure would result in a multiplicity of suits. In Robique v. Lambert, D.C.La., 114 F.Supp. 305, affirmed 5 Cir., 214 F. 2d 3, an action seeking injunctive relief from an assessment of $250.00 on each of certain pinball m......
-
United States v. Curd
...5 Cir., 112 F.2d 930; Shambaugh v. Scofield, 5 Cir., 132 F.2d 345; Robique v. Lambert, 5 Cir., 214 F.2d 3, affirming per curiam D.C.La., 114 F.Supp. 305, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 915, 75 S.Ct. 297, 99 L. Ed. 718; Darnell v. Tomlinson, 5 Cir., 220 F.2d 894; Lloyd v. Patterson, 5 Cir., 242 ......
-
Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co.
...Tax Cases, 92 U.S. 575, 23 L. Ed. 663; Lloyd v. Patterson, 5 Cir., 242 F.2d 742; Enochs v. Green, 5 Cir., 270 F.2d 558; Robique v. Lambert, D.C., 114 F.Supp. 305, affirmed per curiam 5 Cir., 214 F.2d 3. We think it clear that the facts involved in the instant case necessitate its falling in......
-
Smith v. Flinn
...upon the taxpayer suffice to stay the statute and grant the injunction, Lloyd v. Patterson, 5 Cir., 1957, 242 F.2d 742; Robique v. Lambert, D.C., 114 F.Supp. 305, affirmed 5 Cir., 1954, 214 F.2d 3, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 915, 75 S.Ct. 297, 99 L.Ed. 718. But the courts have on numerous o......