Twentieth Century Sporting Club v. United States

Decision Date07 October 1940
Docket NumberNo. 44650.,44650.
Citation34 F. Supp. 1021
PartiesTWENTIETH CENTURY SPORTING CLUB, Inc., v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Claims Court

Melvin D. Hildreth, of Washington, D. C. (Hildreth, Mason & Mander, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for plaintiff.

Hubert L. Will and Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Joseph H. Sheppard, Robert N. Anderson, and Fred K. Dyar, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for defendant.

Before WHALEY, Chief Justice, and WHITAKER, LITTLETON, and GREEN, Judges.

WHITAKER, Judge.

On June 25, 1935, August 2, 1935, and October 3, 1935, the plaintiff held three boxing bouts. The tickets for each of these bouts listed the "established price" at certain figures, which included the New York State admission tax. The federal tax was computed on this price, the amount thereof was shown on the ticket and was paid by the purchaser of the ticket, and thereafter was duly remitted by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff claims that the Federal tax was improperly computed, in that it was computed on the admission price plus the New York State tax, and hence it says that the Federal admission tax has been overpaid. It sues to recover on the theory that it bore the burden of the tax.

The defendant defends on two grounds: (1) that the plaintiff was merely the collector of the tax, and not the taxpayer and, therefore, whether or not the taxes were overpaid, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover; and (2) that the Federal tax was correctly computed anyway.

We think it necessary to consider only the first of these two propositions.

Section 711(a) of the Revenue Act of 1932, 47 Stat. 169, 271, Chapter 209, 26 U. S.C.A.Int.Rev.Acts, page 627, amends section 500(a) (1) of the Revenue Act of 1926 to read in part as follows: "A tax of 1 cent for each 10 cents or fraction thereof of the amount paid for admission to any place, including admission by season ticket or subscription, to be paid by the person paying for such admission; * * *."

However the tax may have been computed, it was paid as the law demanded "by the person paying for such admission." The Federal tax was shown separately on the ticket; for instance, on a $11.50 ticket, the price of admission, including the State tax, was shown to be $10.45, and the Federal tax was shown separately to be $1.05, making the total amount to be paid $11.50. The purchaser of the ticket paid $10.45 for admission and State tax, and $1.05 for the Federal admission tax. This $1.05 was merely collected by the plaintiff, and by it transmitted to the defendant. This being true, it would appear that only the person paying the tax would be entitled to recover it, unless the plaintiff is entitled to recover because it bore the burden of the tax.

Plaintiff insists that it could not have demanded more than $11.50 for this class of ticket, that it could not increase the price thereof to take care of the excess Federal tax, and, therefore, that it in reality bore...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Karbal v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • 24 Mayo 2007
    ...Karbal lacks legal standing to bring this suit because he is not the actual taxpayer. See Twentieth Century Sporting Club, Inc. v. United States, 92 Ct. Cl. 93, 34 F.Supp. 1021, 1023 (1940) ("But even though the plaintiff had in fact borne the burden of the tax, it nevertheless was not the ......
  • Engineer's Club of Philadelphia v. United States
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • 2 Febrero 1942
    ...cause of action accrued to it against the government." This is also consistent with our decision in Twentieth Century Sporting Club v. United States, 34 F.Supp. 1021, 1023, 92 Ct.Cl. 93. The plaintiff in that case sought to recover taxes on admissions to boxing bouts. We denied recovery, sa......
  • Sun Oil Co. v. Gross Income Tax Div.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 1 Abril 1958
    ...may pay the seller more for the goods because of the seller's obligation, but that is all.' See also Twentieth Century Sporting Club, Inc., v. United States, 34 F.Supp. 1021, 92 Ct.Cl. 93.' 128 F.Supp. at page 749. The contention was made In re Tele-Tone Radio Corp., etc., D.C.1955, 133 F.S......
  • Karbal v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • 24 Mayo 2011
    ...1980). Karbal lacks legal standing to bring this suit because he is not the actual taxpayer. See Twentieth Century Sporting Club, Inc. v. United States, 34 F. Supp. 1021, 1023 (Ct. Cl. 1940) ("But even though the plaintiff had in fact borne the burden of the tax, it nevertheless was not the......
  • 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