Town Club of St. Louis v. United States
Decision Date | 22 January 1934 |
Docket Number | 9712.,No. 9711,9711 |
Citation | 68 F.2d 620 |
Parties | TOWN CLUB OF ST. LOUIS v. UNITED STATES. SAME v. BECKER, Collector of Internal Revenue. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Marion C. Early, Waller Edwards, and Myrtle B. Wood, all of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Louis H. Breuer, U. S. Atty., of Rolla, Mo., Bryan Purteet, Asst. U. S. Atty., of St. Louis, Mo., and E. Barrett Prettyman, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and L. H. Baylies, Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before STONE, SANBORN, and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges.
Appellant in cause No. 9711 sues the United States at law to recover the sum of $6,281.84 for taxes alleged to have been illegally paid during a period from April 9, 1924, to December 19, 1925. In cause No. 9712 the suit is against the Collector of Internal Revenue to recover the sum of $10,522.14 for taxes alleged to have been illegally paid during the period beginning January 16, 1926, and ending March 31, 1928. Demand for refund was made and refused. A jury was waived and the two cases were by consent consolidated for trial and submitted to the court upon pleadings and proofs. The legal effect of the facts in the two cases is the same.
The taxes involved were assessed and collected under the provisions of section 801 of the Revenue Act of 1921 (42 Stat. 291), which provides:
This section was carried, without material change, into section 501 of the Revenue Acts of 1924 and 1926 (26 USCA § 872 note), and may be referred to as the statutory law applicable to the cases under consideration. The appellant is an organization of St. Louis, Mo., women. It has approximately 2,000 members — perhaps more. As alleged in its petition, the club was organized under article 10, of chapter 33, Revised Statutes of Missouri 1909, and amendments thereto (Mo. St. Ann. c. 32, art. 10, § 4996 et seq., p. 2288 et seq.), which provide for the organization of benevolent, religious, scientific, fraternal-beneficial, educational, and miscellaneous associations.
The articles of association, article 4, state the object and purpose of the club as follows:
The club's constitution, article 2, provides:
"The objects of this Association shall be to provide and maintain an organized center for the investigation, discussion and improvement of the civic, business and social affairs of the City of Saint Louis, and more especially as they pertain to women, and to provide club room, library and other conveniences for its members; provided that the organization as such shall never be committed to the endorsement of any particular measure."
Regulation No. 43, part. 2, article 5, of the Treasury Department which gives the departmental construction of section 801 of the Revenue Act of 1921, reads as follows:
This law was long administered by the department in accordance with the foregoing definition, and "the substantial re-enactment in later acts of the provision theretofore construed by the Department is persuasive evidence of legislative approval of the regulation" (Brewster v. Gage, 280 U. S. 327, 337, 50 S. Ct. 115, 117, 74 L. Ed. 457); "for Congress is presumed to have legislated with knowledge of such an established usage of an executive department of the government." National Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U. S. 140, 147, 40 S. Ct. 237, 239, 64 L. Ed. 496; United States v. Bailey, 9 Pet. 238, 256, 9 L. Ed. 113.
The question presented, then, is whether appellant was, during the periods when the taxes sued for were assessed and exacted, a "social, athletic, or sporting club or organization" within the meaning of said section 801 of the applicable Revenue Act, and so subject to the taxes levied, or whether its functions were civic and/or educational, and so exempt. The court found the issues in favor of the government. Appellant requested neither findings of fact nor conclusions of law, contenting itself with motions to modify those made by the court and for a new trial. As a strict matter of procedure, the court made no specific findings. It discussed in its...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Epstein v. United States
...70 Ct.Cl. 366 (1930); Union League Club of Chicago v. United States, 4 F.Supp. 929, 78 Ct.Cl. 351 (1933); Town Club of St. Louis v. United States, 68 F.2d 620 (8th Cir., 1934); Century Club v. United States, 12 F.Supp. 617, 81 Ct.Cl. 878 (1935); Furniture Club of America v. United States, 6......
-
State ex rel. Springfield Warehouse & Transfer Co. v. Public Service Com'n
... ... Carpenter, et al. v. City ... of St. Louis et al., 2 S.W. 2d 713, l. c. 727, 318 Mo ... 870; 50 Am ... interpretation. Town" Club of St. Louis v. United States, 68 ... F.2d 620 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Krug v. Rasquin
...Ct.Cl. 220, certiorari denied 279 U.S. 836, 49 S.Ct. 251, 73 L.Ed. 984; Quadrangle Club v. U. S., 7 Cir., 64 F.2d 80; Town Club of St. Louis v. U. S., 8 Cir., 68 F.2d 620; Fleming v. Reinecke, 7 Cir., 52 F.2d 449, 80 A.L.R. 1293; Wichita Commercial & Social Club Ass'n v. U. S., 2 F. Supp. 4......
-
Duquesne Club v. Bell, 7877
...2 Cir., 1934, 72 F.2d 684, 688. 3 Union League Club of Chicago v. United States, Ct.Cl.1933, 4 F.Supp. 929. 4 Town Club of St. Louis v. United States, 8 Cir., 1934, 68 F.2d 620; Quadrangle Club v. United States, 7 Cir., 1933, 64 F.2d 80; Engineer's Club of Philadelphia v. United States, Ct.......