Case Name: IMPERIAL BRASS MANUFACTURING CO. v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1929-10-21
Citations: 69 Ct. Cl. 20
Docket Number: No. H-439
Parties: IMPERIAL BRASS MANUFACTURING CO. v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 20–23

Head Matter:
IMPERIAL BRASS MANUFACTURING CO. v. THE UNITED STATES
[No. H-439.
Decided October 21, 1929.
Motion for new trial overruled June 16, 1930]
Mr. Alex Koplin for the plaintiff.
Mr. Ralph G. Williamson, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Herman J. Galloway, for the defendant. Mr. Arthwr J. lies was on the brief.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM BY TEE COURT
The findings show that the plaintiff manufactured certain articles which were ordinarily used in connection with automobile engines, automobile trucks, or automobiles. Most of these articles were specially designed and advertised for that purpose, but others, in some form, could be used in connection with stationary engines or for other purposes which did not render their sale taxable, and the evidence shows that the plaintiff sold some of these articles to manufacturers who did not make automobiles and dealers who did not supply parts for them. There is nothing, however, in the evidence to show that any of the sales which were taxed were of articles not sold for use in connection with automobiles or automobile trucks.
This court is committed to the doctrine that where an article is designed for use upon automobiles or automobile trucks, and is sold for that purpose, it is subject to the excise tax upon accessories. Walker Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 65 C. Cls. 394 (certiorari denied); Cole Storage Battery Co. v. United States, 65 C. Cls. 164 (certiorari denied); Advance Automobile Accessories Corp. v. United States, 66 C. Cls. 304 (certiorari denied); Edison Storage Battery Co. v. United States, 67 C. Cls. 543; Borg & Beck Co. v. United States, 67 C. Cls. 242.
In the last-named case it is held that if the tax has been assessed on the sale of articles, most or all of which are subject to the tax, the burden is upon the plaintiff to show upon what sales, if any, the tax was unlawfully imposed. Plaintiff having failed to sustain this burden, its petition must be dismissed and it is so ordered.