Thurman v. Swisshelm
| Citation | 36 F.2d 350 |
| Decision Date | 07 December 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 4172.,4172. |
| Parties | THURMAN, Collector, v. SWISSHELM et al. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
E. F. McMahon, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
W. C. Batchelder, of Indianapolis, Ind., for appellees.
Before ALSCHULER, EVANS, and PAGE, Circuit Judges.
The action was against the United States Collector of Internal Revenue to recover a tax alleged to have been unlawfully assessed and collected under section 900, c. 18 (40 Stat. 1122), of an act of Congress approved February 24, 1919, and section 900, c. 136, of an act of Congress approved November 23, 1921 (42 Stat. 291), imposing a tax upon "other automobiles and motor cycles (including tires, inner tubes, parts, and accessories therefor, sold on or in connection therewith or with the sale thereof), except tractors, 5 per centum" of the price for which sold or leased by the manufacturer or producer.
Appellees dealt in automobiles. They bought from the Ford company or its agents complete Ford cars. They bought from the Ames company automobile bodies, so constructed as to fit upon the Ford chassis. Some of their customers would exchange the bodies of their Ford cars for Ames bodies, and would then either remove the Ford bodies themselves and replace them with Ames bodies, or would have appellees do this for them. In other cases appellees would themselves substitute the Ames bodies for the bodies on their Ford automobiles, and then sell their customers the automobiles thus equipped, and dispose of the removed new Ford bodies at a price which would enable them to realize for their Ford automobiles what they had paid for them, their profit coming from the sale of the Ames bodies.
This controversy involves the transactions of the purchase by appellees of the complete Ford automobiles, the removal of the bodies thereof, and the substitution therefor of the Ames bodies which appellees had purchased, and in such condition the sale of the automobiles.
The manufacturer's tax of 5 per cent. had been paid by the maker of the Ford automobiles, and by the maker of the Ames bodies, and this tax entered into the purchase price appellees were required to pay for them. The tax assessed against and collected from appellees was 5 per cent. of the price at which the altered automobile was sold by appellees, less a deduction of the manufacturer's tax which had been paid on the Ames bodies; but deduction of the tax which had been paid on the Ford...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Armature Rewinding Co.
...United States, 207 U.S. 556, 26 S.Ct. 204, 52 L.Ed. 336; Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U.S. 609, 7 S.Ct. 1240, 30 L.Ed. 1012; Thurman v. Swisshelm, 7 Cir., 36 F.2d 350. 5 See Helvering v. Hutchings, 312 U.S. 393, 397, 398, 61 S.Ct. 653, 85 L.Ed. 909; United States v. Pelzer, 312 U.S. 399, 403,......
-
Armature Exchange v. United States
...173 F. 445); house construction (In re Kingston Realty Co., 2 Cir. 1908, 160 F. 445); replacement of automobile bodies (Thurman v. Swisshelm, 7 Cir. 1929, 36 F.2d 350). Instances of repairs or restorations of parts of automobiles, some of the type here involved, others of a different type, ......
-
Jacobs Equipment Co. v. U.S., 76-1683
...of manufacturing. In support of our conclusion, see United States v. Gamble-Skogmo, 91 F.2d 372 (8th Cir. 1937) and Thurman v. Swisshelm, 36 F.2d 350 (7th Cir. 1929). In Swisshelm the taxpayer bought complete cars from Ford Motor Company. He also bought from another company automobile bodie......