The New York herald., 1878-03-27
7ILDEN'S INCOME TAX
The Government Sustained in Its
Action to Recover.
JUDGE BLATCHFORD'S DECISION.
The Case To Be Sent to a
Jury.

Judge Blatchford, in the United States District
Court HANDED down his decision yesterday in the
case OF tho United States VS.. s. j. Tden for unpaid
Income tax The document Is very lengthy one.
Inc summary below gives its most important features
Mr. Roger Sherman. Assistant United States District
Attorney, said yesterday that the stands
hus-The demurrer .ot the defendant to the nrst
count OF the complaint, which comprised the tax Tor
1861, is sustained. The defendant interposed special
deiences TO the remaining eleven counts OF the CON-
plant, which comprises the tax from 1862 to 1872
setting up the assessment In bar OF this SUIT he
United States demurred to these special deiences.
The decision sustans this demurrer. The case now
goes to trial before jury the question OF the
amount OF income OF the defendant from 1862 to 1872
DECISION.
The complaint this case tains the of
tion ana framed 10 collect from the defendant by
IN action at law, unpaid taxes. outes, income.
The fist count Is based sections 49, so and 81 of
the act oil August g. 1851 2 u S. Stat. at Large 800,
BIO and BLY, and claims recover as due on the 30th
of juno, 1862 the OF So 900, tax OF three per
cent on an OF 100000 Tor the year next pre-
cedng e1st OF January, 1862. The second count is
based sections 80 10 81 OF the act of July 1862
and claims 10 recover dues ou the S0th OF June,
1868, the oil So 5l5 duty of i've percent on
an income OF $1SO.O0o for the year next preceding
the OF the act of 1862 and claims
SO, $50 for the year next preceding the 1st Of
January, 1864.
Tue defendant in his answer denies that he re.
Ccived Tor OF tho mentioned in the second
and third counts any amount OF income in excess Of
tho amount on whicn he paid duty and that he paid
the iul amount Tor which he was hable he further
states that he paid the proper collector such
amount OF tax and that 1t ascertalned at any
time within fifteen months OF the 18th oil July, 1866
that any OF the lists were imperfect or incomplete.
The fourth count is based the JOINT resolution
and claims to recover due on the 1st OF October,
1854, tue sum OF S6,250 duty OF five per cent
income OF $I25, 900 tor the year next preceding
the 1st oi January, 1864.
The defendant, in his answer TO the com plant,
3!as that nc received Tor the year mentioned any
amount OF income in excess Of The amount which
he PAID duty, and also that nc paid to the proper
collector such amount OF special duty, and that 1t
was not ascertained at any time within fifteen months
alter the 18Th OF july 1885, that the list which sai1
assessment was entered was imperfect and incom-
petc
The remaining eight counts similar in character
to the above, and the defendant says shat
he paid special duty and that thereafter assessor
made list n his annual income, and assessed the
duty thereon and added iity per cent, as penalty,
10 the am cunt of the duty assessed aud that the de-
fendan paid tue collector the amount OF taxes aud
penalties SO assessed"
PLAINTIFFS DEMuRRER.
judge BlatCh1ord then says
The plaintiffs demur to each of the above recited
urther deIences, the ground that they
it, The demurrer to the special dsfence on tne second
third sne ourtn counts rses the whether
by fact that the aae rsurn and that an
by him ana thai no mperiectons were discovered in the
evenh sshs
eleventh and twelfth couIts raises the question whether
made no return Of and an amount otax
feca was dseoverea un alter nt se pa is Of july 1865
The demurrer 20 the further aetenccs TO the h SIXTH
the the action in these
turn and amount OF tax and penalty were assessed
% dssns h% and he ; saon The % to the
whether the OF action n that count barred by the
facts that the defendant made no return and amount of
lax was assessed against him aud he paid 1t.
Judge Blatchord then rectes the provisions Of the
act 1862 section 9u imposing the Income tax the
loint resolution vi 1864 the net 1864, the amend.
men,s OF 1865 and the act OF 1885, and then says:-
/, is conssnded for the defendant that the statute con-
has MOI BEEN s in the special M
acticn TO recover tax on the annual income Of in
until after the OF such annual shall have
Sssn estimated and assessed in In the mode pro
amount IF the tax shall have been computed
81 the
OF this view is that the sstate has created trpn
mai OF assessment Tor the determ ton of ali questions
osuch tribunal final and conclusive
is the collector OF the income tax
ee.hed by the assessor no remedy exists to enforce BY
lions thus taken by the defendant as distinctly nsid 70 be
Unea States in SAVINGS Bank VS. United states % Wal
lace, 227).
ADDITIONAL AU1 HoRIrIEs
Judge Blatchlord then specifies the provisions OF
section l2O OF the Internal Revenue act OF 1864 as
amended by the act Of July 13. 1866, page 1885, aud
goes TO say
1t is impossible not regard decision in Savings
Bank United States completely covering the
The statutes imposing the two substan
TALLY Identical in their provisions. In each
by The Is Imposed b ~
officer oy any OF the machinery methods organized
the statute.
Alter reviewing the above decision and the Hazard
case, tho Court
assessment may be questioned by th&taxpayer in
suit brought by him to recover back taxes paid accord
Ing TO the assessment, and in bought by the United
States against him the Hssessment it Is dilhcu
why, in where the United states claiming to
omtted from the assessment the
should be regarded conclusive against the United
In United states VS. Hailoran t22 Internal Revenue
Judge shipnsn, de -idcd that assessment was not
final and conclusive against the United States In
whore the tax had been collected Uy dsrant,
the United states sued to only the
sesed but the difference between the assessed and
paid and the true tax
All the legal propositions contended the part OF
defer thus been considered The
questions Involved and the ABILITY
with which they have been discussed both sides de-
anded that they should receive fu attention In the
Hazard the OF the the of
been attack the decision OF the
defendant IL Is sid that the supreme Court in that
Invented Judicial device to the loss IL
safely lett that vnieate III necessary its
decision. 1t Is the of this Cout faithfully to inter
that decton apply II to other they arise
The demurrer interposed by the panth is sustained