United States v. King Trailer Company, 19758.

Decision Date07 September 1965
Docket NumberNo. 19758.,19758.
Citation350 F.2d 947
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. KING TRAILER COMPANY, Inc., Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, David O. Walter, Fred E. Youngman, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Manuel L. Real, U. S. Atty., Loyal E. Keir, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Tax Div., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

W. S. Rainbolt, Long Beach, Cal., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, BARNES and ELY, Circuit Judges.

ELY, Circuit Judge:

The Government appeals from a judgment awarding a refund of certain excise taxes which the appellee, a manufacturer, claims to have been illegally imposed and collected. The manufactured articles, described as "pickup coaches", were held by the district court not to be "automobile truck bodies" or "automobile accessories" within the contemplation of Int. Rev. Code of 1954, § 4061. The careful reasoning of the district court is seen in its reported opinion. King Trailer Company v. United States, 228 F.Supp. 1013 (S.D. Cal.1964).

The question here, as in the court below, is succinctly put by the Government as follows:

"Whether certain articles manufactured and sold by the taxpayer, commonly designated `pickup coaches,\' designed and constructed after the fashion of small house trailers primarily for installation, transportation, and use in connection with a conventional pickup truck, but not permanently affixed to a truck, as temporary mobile housing while traveling, vacationing, etc., are subject to the manufacturers excise taxes under Section 4061(a) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as automobile truck bodies or under Section 4061(b) as automobile parts or accessories."

We have reviewed the record, which includes testimony given orally, answers to Requests for Admissions and Written Interrogatories submitted by the Government, and photographs, diagrams, and detailed descriptions of the pickup coaches. While they were clearly designed for easy use with a pickup automobile truck, were sold for such use, and were generally so used, they were manufactured as separate, independent units. They are, simply and essentially, small house trailers without wheels. House trailers and house trailer parts and accessories are exempt from the excise tax by express provisions of the statute. Int. Rev. Code of 1954, § 4061(a) (2). That the unit is made wheelless and of such styling as to enable its easy use for transportation as a load or cargo upon a pickup truck does not change its obvious characteristics. Its placement upon a truck does not require the removal of the existing "automobile truck body" of the pickup truck, nor, in our opinion, does it superimpose another.

We cannot extend the power to tax beyond the clear authority of statute. Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55, 61, 51 S.Ct. 49, 75 L.Ed. 156 (1930); Bowers v. New York & Albany Lighterage Co., 273 U.S. 346, 350, 47 S.Ct. 389, 71 L.Ed....

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Herren v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • August 18, 1970
    ...* * (Emphasis supplied.) The regulation was construed in King Trailer Co. v. United States, 228 F.Supp. 1013 (S.D.Cal.1964), aff'd 350 F.2d 947 (9th Cir. 1965),4 and held not to encompass a camper coach similar to plaintiff's slide-in Although each coach is designed to be carried on such mo......
  • Travel Industries of Kansas, Inc. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • May 15, 1970
    ...§ 4061(a) applied to campers. This belief was held wrong in King Trailer Co. v. United States, S. D.Cal., 228 F.Supp. 1013, affirmed, 9 Cir., 350 F.2d 947. While that litigation was pending, Congress amended 26 U.S. C. § 4063 to provide specifically that the "tax imposed under section 4061"......
  • Glenn v. Trust Co. of Columbus
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 14, 1979
    ...that they became "automobile accessories" for various tax purposes have generally been more restrictive. E. g., United States v. King Trailer Co., 350 F.2d 947 (9th Cir. 1965) ("pickup coaches" designed to convert pickup trucks to campers do not fall within the classification of "automobile......
  • FISHER ENGINEERING v. United States, Civ. No. 12-14.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • March 30, 1974
    ...as such. For this proposition, plaintiff relies on King Trailer Co. v. United States, 228 F.Supp. 1013 (S. D.Cal.1964), aff'd, 350 F.2d 947 (9th Cir. 1965) and Rex Chainbelt, Inc. v. United States, 72-1 USTC ¶ 16,029, aff'd 484 F.2d 651 (7th Cir. 1973), and on several Revenue Rulings. These......
  • 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