Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/271/case.html
Timestamp: 2016-08-25 09:50:11
Document Index: 463581082

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4462', '§ 4462', '§ 4462', '§ 4462', '§ 4462', '§ 4462', '§ 4462', '§ 3267']

United States v. Korpan :: 354 U.S. 271 (1957) :: Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center Log In
› United States v. Korpan
United States v. Korpan 354 U.S. 271 (1957)
U.S. Supreme CourtUnited States v. Korpan, 354 U.S. 271 (1957)United States v. KorpanNo. 596Argued April 25, 1957Decided June 17, 1957354 U.S. 271CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
"so-called 'slot' machines which operate by means of insertion of a coin . . . and which, by application Page 354 U. S. 272 of the element of chance, may deliver, or entitle the person playing . . . the machine to receive cash, premiums, merchandise, or tokens. [Footnote 1] "Page 354 U. S. 273
It is clear that respondent's machines were operated by the insertion of a coin, and that persons playing them could receive cash for any free games won. The machines also involved an element of chance sufficient Page 354 U. S. 274 to meet the requirements of § 4462(a)(2), although skill may have had some part in playing them successfully. In short, they were "slot-machine" gambling devices.
On its face, the language of § 4462(a)(2) and related sections does not manifest an intent to limit the application of the otherwise broad terms of § 4462(a)(2) to any particular kind of "slot-machine" gambling device. The phrase "so-called "slot" machine" is, if anything, more consistent with the position advanced by the Government than that taken by Korpan. And the remainder of § 4462(a)(2), as well as § 4462(c), has language which affirmatively suggests that § 4462(a)(2) was designed to include all sorts of coin-operated gambling devices, regardless Page 354 U. S. 275 or their particular structure or the method by which they paid off players.
(Emphasis added.) Respondent contends that this report, as well as similar language in other parts of the legislative history, is indicative of an intent on the part of Congress to draw a distinction between "one-armed bandits" and other coin-operated gambling or amusement machines. [Footnote 5] We interpret this history, however, as demonstrating a congressional Page 354 U. S. 276 purpose to place a heavy tax on all "slot-machine" gambling devices, regardless of their particular structure, and a substantially smaller tax on machines played purely for amusement which offered the player no expectation of receiving "cash, premiums, merchandise, or tokens."
If the respondent's position were adopted, § 4462(a)(2) would be restricted to a peculiar type of gambling device -- the so-called "one-armed bandit" -- even though ingenuity, a desire to avoid taxes, and technological Page 354 U. S. 277 progress provide a multitude of new devices which permit substantially the same kind of gambling, but only with a different kind of coin-operated machine. We are convinced that Congress had no such purpose, and meant only to distinguish between "slot-machines" operated as gambling devices and "slot-machines" which were used exclusively for amusement.
For the legislative history of what became § 3267 see: H.R.Rep. No. 1040, 77th Cong., 1st Sess. 60; H.R.Rep. No. 1203, 77th Cong., 1st Sess. 18; S.Rep. No. 673, 77th Cong., 1st Sess. 21; 87 Cong.Rec. 6476, 72977307.
See Hearings before the House Committee on Ways and Means on Revenue Revision of 1942, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. 20552061, 26822688; Hearings before the Senate Committee on Finance on H.R. 7378, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. 11321141; Hearings before House Committee on Ways and Means on General Revision of the Internal Revenue Code, 83d Cong., 1st Sess. 25052522; Hearings before Senate Committee on Finance on H.R. 8300, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. 18741879.
56 Stat. 978979.