Wourdack v. Becker
Decision Date | 23 February 1932 |
Docket Number | No. 9197.,9197. |
Citation | 55 F.2d 840 |
Parties | WOURDACK v. BECKER, Collector of Internal Revenue. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Chase Morsey, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Charles K. Hoover, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C. (Louis H. Breuer, U. S. Atty., of Rolla, Mo., Claude M. Crooks, Asst. U. S. Atty., of St. Louis, Mo., C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Charles T. Hendler, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before VAN VALKENBURGH, BOOTH, and GARDNER, Circuit Judges.
Paris Gas & Electric Company and Danville Light, Power & Traction Company were two Kentucky corporations against which in April, 1928, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed, for the year 1923, additional taxes, amounting in May, 1928, with interest and penalties, to $1,786.12. Of these corporations appellant was at one time president, and, as such, had signed their income tax returns. There is evidence that, during the year 1923, these corporations had sold their assets, and had discontinued business. The collector of the district of Kentucky, being unable to collect these taxes in his district, sent the tax bills to the collector of internal revenue for the First district of Missouri at St. Louis, appellee herein. Learning that appellant was, or had been, the president of the taxpayer corporations, appellee, by his deputy, sent the tax bills to the corporations in care of appellant, at his office in the Railway Exchange Building in St. Louis, and demanded payment. There is some conflict in the testimony as to what took place in the office of the Collector of Internal Revenue May 24, 1928. Appellant testified as follows:
Wunsch, the deputy collector, gave the following version as to what occurred:
September 17, 1929, appellant filed his personal claim for refund with the collector at St. Louis. This claim was rejected by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, principally because it was not filed by the taxpayers against which the taxes were assessed. No claim for refund was filed on behalf of the corporations. May 1, 1930, appellant brought suit against appellee to recover the amount of the taxes paid by him. The grounds for recovery stated in his petition are these:
At the trial a jury was waived, and, the court, finding the facts substantially as stated above, concluded, as matter of law, that "the act of plaintiff in paying...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allen v. Regents of University System of Georgia
...D.C., 2 F.2d 393; Lafayette Worsted Co. v. Page, D.C., 6 F.2d 399; Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Bowers, 2 Cir., 33 F.2d 102; Wourdack v. Becker, 8 Cir., 55 F.2d 840; but see Builders' Club of Chicago v. United States, Ct.Cl., 14 F.Supp. 14 U.S.C. tit. 31, § 203, 31 U.S.C.A. § 203. 15 'No suit for ......
-
G.S. Johnson Co. v. N. Sauer Milling Co.
... ... interest in the funds thus paid. Shell Oil Co. v ... Miller, Inc. (C.C.A.) 53 F.2d 74; Wourdack v ... Becker, Collector (C.C.A.) 55 F.2d 840; Lash's ... Products Co. v. U.S. 278 U.S. 175, 49 S.Ct. 100, 73 L.Ed ... In ... Johnson ... ...
-
Engineer's Club of Philadelphia v. United States
...393; Lafayette Worsted Co. v. Page (D.C.) 6 F.2d 399, 400; Bunker Hill Country Club v. United States (Ct.Cl.) 9 F.Supp. 52; Wourdack v. Becker 8 Cir., 55 F.2d 840, certiorari denied 286 U.S. 548, 52 S.Ct. 501, 76 L.Ed. 1285. The admission tax statute (44 Stat. 91, § 500, as amended 26 U.S.C......
-
Vidal v. Stahmann Farms
...more or less similar to those of the instant case were denied: Central Aguirre Sugar Co. v. U. S., Ct.Cl., 2 F.Supp. 538; Wourdack v. Becker, 8 Cir., 55 F.2d 840, certiorari denied 286 U.S. 548, 52 S.Ct. 501, 76 L.Ed. 1285; Clift & Goodrich v. U. S., 2 Cir., 56 F.2d 751, certiorari denied 2......