Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1922-12-06
SUPREME COURT MAY
PASS UPON TAX SUIT
OF ALFRED !. DU POINT
Continued from, pnge I.

AT the tonCluSion ti utSuihcnl yS
tertay Judge Joseph Burlington Of
Pittsburg suggested that United States
District Attorney James II. Hughes.
Jr., of Wilmington and William A.
Glasgow. Jr.. counsel for Mr.. du Pont.
meet and draw up one or more aues-'
tions on the issues involved In the
case and submit them TO the Court OF
Appeals for examination.
IL the questions submitted In this
way meet with the approval OF the
three judges sitting in the court they
will bo certified TO the Supreme Court
for answer.
The main question at issue In the
case ae 1t stands and on which
counsel fer both sides dwelt for several
hours yesterday Ia. could Mr.. du
Pont. II he paid the government tie
taxes alleged to be due. sue the gov
ernment for their recovery as illegally
collected excessive taxes?''
Mr.. Hughes answers yes" and cites
a section of the Revised Statutes OF the
United states as proof.
Mr.. Glasgow says mo-" citing n
statute showing IL Mr.. du Pont paid
the money he could not file n claim for
refund because more than fivc years
have expired since the date OF the In
come tax return. lie intimated that
IL itwere proven that his client had
a remedy at law and could sue for the
return of the money, he would pay
the government Immediately. on the
other hand he charged that the amount
assessed additional on the 1915 tax I.
six times greater than IL should be.
The exact amount is Si,516.015 Sc,
which was the tax on approximately
75. 900 shares OF stock of the Il. I. du
Pont de Ncmours & Co. stock received
by Mr.. du Pont in 1915 at n financial
reorganization OF the company.
Claims OvcrvaluAtion.
The government taxed Mr.. du Pont
on the basis OF s3i7.50a share. while
value much below par, which was si0o.
I'VE are not here TO evade payment
Of taxes" Mr.. Glasgow said. I'VE are
here for justice. II the government
would assess a reasonable tax we
would pay"
II the court OF appeals falls 20
certify the questions, FOR any reason
and decides 10 settle the case without
the advice of the Supreme Court on
two or more major questions the de-
cisiol on the argument will likely he
handed down after the first of the
year.
The government Mr.. Hughes eaid
will carry it, case 30 throw out the
| injunction. so the Supreme Court II
the Court OF Appeals upholds Mr.. du
Pont and the action OF judge Thomp-
son who granted the injunction. Mr.
Glasgow viii do likewise. he said, 4,
the court reVerses Judge Thompson
and discards the injunction.
At present the government has n
suit pending In Delaware courts
against MIR. du Pont FOR this sum Of
money I'm hack taxes. Tho Injunction
received by du Pont while restraining
the government from collecting the
taxes by distraint. 9; does not re-
strain the government from suing ir
court.
Mr.. Glasgow argue, a,eo on severa
other points. The government cannot
collect the money because tho statute
OF limitations OF 1921 prohibits any at.
tempt 20 collect after five years from
the time payment was due. in thl,
case March. 1916. Mr.. Glasgow said
The limitation statute may ruin IN,
governments suit IN Delaware. Mr.
Hughes indicated. The suit was file,
the day the law was enacted las
year. II such is the case the onl,
redress the government has is II
seeking 20 have the injunction throws
out.
This statement was made by VI,
Hughes following the suggestions b
Judges Burlington. Bodine and Davi,
that the government allow the in
junction 70 remain until the suit /
settled
In support OF It's Argument that Nj
du Pont has an adequate remedy a
law II he paid the money TO the gov
ernment with the demanded interes
and per cent additional penalty. tn
government cites Section 1926 of IN
Revised Statutes which states tina
suit or proceedings for the recover
Of internal revenue tax alleged I
have been enormously or Illegally as
sessed or collected can be started afte
a claim Tor refund or credit has bee
d filed with the Commissioner OF In
; ternal Revenue. VIZ:
NO such suit or proceeding shs
be begun before the expiration OF =.
months from the date of filing sue
claim-nor after the expiration {
five years from the date OF the pay
ment OF such tax"
This statute the government hold
allows Mr.. du Pont or any other tax
payer 10 sue the government nv
years after the tax is paid. Mr.. d
Pont hasn't paid the tax, Mr.. Hughe
, added. and therefore has five or NOR
years within which TO bring suit.
In support OF his argument for r,
versing the injunction Mr.. Hughe
cites Statute 1924 which says: IN
suit for the purpose. OF restraining n
assessment or collection of any Ia
shall be maintained IN any court"
Section 1920, Mr.. Hughes cited pr,
vides that: The Commissioner
Internal Revenues authorized
, remit. refund or pay back all sax,
erroneously or illegally assessed or co
lected without authority-etc." Th
aids in the proof that Mr.. du Po,
would have an adequate remedy
law IL he paid what we say is du
> Mr. Hughes maintains.
-