Evening journal., 1922-12-06
COURT
TOPASS ON LAW
CONTINUED from First PeEe)

NCOntinued from FlrSt RGEc.D
James H. Hughes. Jr.. and Chester
A. Gwinn, counsel for the Treasury
Department. Mr. DUPONT was rep
resented by'wilhaw A. Glasgow, Jr..
and Henry P. Brown.
Mr.. Glasgows argument hinged
on tho statute OF limitation" He
contended that after the assessment
OF the governments claim for the
unpaid taxes. counsel for Mr.. du-
PoDt had repeatedly sought a hear
ing from the Commissioner OF In
ternal Revenue. but had not even
received the courtesy" OF a reply.
The demand for the payment of the
taxes was made more than five years
after the assessment in 1915.
Mr.. Glasgow quoted a section OF
the revenue act to the effect that
mo suit or proceedings for the col
lection OF any such taxes shall
begun after the expiration of five
years after the date when such re-
turn was filed."
The attorney contended that
under the existing law, had
Mr.. DUPONT paid the disputed taxes
and then attempted to bring suit for
their recovery his action would have
been automatically barred and his
client without redress.
Declares Suit Barred
District Attorney Hughes based !
the government case on a statute
reading:
"No suit for the purpose of re-
straining the assessment or collec-
ton of any tax shall be maintained |
in any court"
He held the statute to be bar 1
against any injunction. This is one /
OF the major questions involved, he !
said, as to whether a taxpayer can 1
bring a suit to prevent the collec-
tion OF a tax.
At Judge Buffington's suggestion.
counsel for the defense was heard
first. Mr.. Glasgow, counsel for
Mr.. du Pont, said the defense would
show the department had no
power TO collect or attempt 10
collect the tax. II they failed to
show this. he said, they would show
that the statute of 1921 relieved Mr..
uu EOhl OL GIL dnAAAANF dH AAAb lANt-
year period had elapsed. He said
section 1924 of the Revised Statutes
was effective only where there was a
remedy at law. He claimed, also,
that the government had greatly
over-valued the stock it was sought
10 tax.
Counsel for the Government
that in his income
tax returns for 1915 Mr.. du-
Pont failed to mention the receipt OF
,534 shares of the common stock
)f the =. I. dupont de Nemours &
after stock of the e. I. du-
Pont de Nemours Powder Company
lad been transferred to the former
The stock at that time, it
5 stated. had a market value OF
'347.5O a share.
An investigation conducted by the
Internal Revenue Department show !
ID that additional tax due from Mr.. =
luPont for 1913 amounted to So
,S4.19, and an overpayment of
'97s.61 for 1914.
Attorneys for the Government al
eyed four errors in the appeal OF the {
ase. They maintain that the court
rred in overruling the motion to =
Ilsmiss the bill; in granting Mr.. du-
sont's motion for a preliminary in |
unction; in holding that the plaintiff
lad no adequate remedy at law II
he collector OF internal revenue
arried ont his threat to collect the
axes by distraint in selling Mr.. du-
'ont's property. The government
lso contended that the court erred
lso in holding that If the plaintiff
ad paid the tax in response to the
and demanded his right 5
o recover the same, II illegally or
assessed and collected, a
you;d be barred by certain sections
( the Revenue Act.
There can be no doubt to the I
urpose of the suit in the case at a
ar. Counsel for the Government
rgued" The only relief prayed for a
the bill was injunction to restrain C
ne collection of the tax, thereby o
iearly branding the suit as the kind a
nat cahnot be maintained under a,
eetion 1924. r. S. The averment 3
T such a purpose should have IL
ounded the death-knell of the COM W
There was neither allegation nor pl