Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/96635/stahmann-vs-vidal
Timestamp: 2018-02-20 12:15:24
Document Index: 283002843

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3226', '§ 1103', '§ 3226', '§ 1103', '§ 3226', '§ 1103']

Stahmann Vs Vidal - Citation 96635 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Stahmann Vs. Vidal - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/96635
Case Number 305 U.S. 61
Appellant Stahmann
Respondent Vidal
...... page 305 u. s. 62 2. where a collector, as required by this act, assessed a tax on excess cotton against the ginner, and the producer, in order to possess himself of the cotton, paid the tax to the collector, held that he had standing, under r.s. § 3226, as amended by the act of june 6, 1932, § 1103, to maintain an action against the collector for recovery of the amount plus interest, based upon the claim that the bankhead act as unconstitutional. p. 305 u. s. 63 . 93 f.2d 902 reversed. certiorari, 304 u.s. 552, to review the reversal of a judgment for a tax, recovered by the taxpayer in the district court, in a case tried without a jury. mr. justice roberts delivered the opinion of the court. we are to decide whether the petitioners may.....
Stahmann v. Vidal - 305 U.S. 61 (1938)
U.S. Supreme Court Stahmann v. Vidal, 305 U.S. 61 (1938)
1. The purpose of the Bankhead Cotton Act (April 21, 1934; repealed by Act of Feb. 10, 1936) was to restrict the production of cotton and, to that end, to levy a heavy tax in respect of that produced in excess of the farmer's quota. The burden was to fall upon the producer. The assessment of the tax against the ginner was intended to immobilize the cotton in his possession until the producer should liquidate the tax. P. 305 U. S. 65 .
2. Where a collector, as required by this Act, assessed a tax on excess cotton against the ginner, and the producer, in order to possess himself of the cotton, paid the tax to the collector, held that he had standing, under R.S. § 3226, as amended by the Act of June 6, 1932, § 1103, to maintain an action against the collector for recovery of the amount plus interest, based upon the claim that the Bankhead Act as unconstitutional. P. 305 U. S. 63 .
We are to decide whether the petitioners may maintain an action to recover from a collector of internal revenue sums paid by them as taxes assessed under the Bankhead Cotton Act. [ Footnote 1 ]
During the crop year 1934-1935, the petitioners were engaged in growing cotton and produced a quantity in excess of the allotment for which, under the terms of the Act, they were entitled to obtain tax exemption certificates. Petitioners delivered the excess cotton to Santo Tomas Gin Company, which ginned it and filed returns with the respondent, as collector, showing a tax of some $13,000 due on the ginning. The respondent, as directed by the Act, assessed the tax against the gin company. The latter refused to deliver the cotton to the petitioners until
The District Court, a jury having been waived, held that the Act was unconstitutional, that the petitioners could maintain the action, and gave judgment for them. The Circuit Court of Appeals refused to pass upon the constitutional question, as it was of opinion that the trial court erred in sustaining the petitioners' standing, and reversed the judgment. [ Footnote 2 ] On account of the importance of the case, we granted certiorari, 304 U.S. 552, limited, however, to the question whether the petitioners were the proper parties to maintain the action.
Section 20(b) of the Bankhead Act [ Footnote 3 ] stated the conditions upon which a proceeding might be maintained for the recovery of any sum alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected under its terms. The Act was repealed February 10, 1936, [ Footnote 4 ] prior to the institution of the instant action. The petitioners were therefore remitted for recovery of the sum demanded to R.S. § 3226, as amended by the Act of June 6, 1932, § 1103(a). [ Footnote 5 ] As thereby required, they timely filed a claim for refund,
The sole question for decision is whether the petitioners voluntarily paid someone's else tax. If they did, they may not maintain the action. [ Footnote 6 ]
The respondent insists that, by the terms of the Act, the tax is imposed upon the ginner, and not upon the producer. The petitioners, on the other hand, point to the provisions of the Act which make the levy of the tax dependent upon the vote of cotton producers, and not upon any act of the ginners, which base exemptions from the tax upon the time, manner, and character of production, and not upon the time, manner, or character of ginning, which grant exemptions to producers, not to ginners, which condition exemptions upon the producers' meeting certain conditions and limitations, and which fix quotas for exemptions to producers. They say Congress never intended the ginner should bear the tax, since the Act provides that he is to be reimbursed up to twenty-five cents per bale for additional expense incurred by him in connection with the administration of the Act. They assert that the respondent's contention that the tax is upon the ginning of the cotton is negatived by the fact that it is not assessed upon all cotton ginned regardless of the amount produced by the owner of the particular farm, and that it amounts per bale to approximately five times the amount of the customary charge for ginning. They call especial attention to those sections of the Act which impose a lien for the tax upon the
The scheme of the Act sets the case apart from any to which our attention has been called arising under other taxing acts. The collector was part of the machinery for compelling the farmer to pay the tax -- for immobilizing the cotton and making it unusable until the assessment