Case Name: LOUISVILLE COUNTRY CLUB, INC., Appellant, v. William M. GRAY, District Director of Internal Revenue, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1960-12-15
Citations: 285 F.2d 532
Docket Number: No. 14109
Parties: LOUISVILLE COUNTRY CLUB, INC., Appellant, v. William M. GRAY, District Director of Internal Revenue, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 285
Pages: 532–533

Head Matter:
LOUISVILLE COUNTRY CLUB, INC., Appellant, v. William M. GRAY, District Director of Internal Revenue, Appellee.
No. 14109.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Dec. 15, 1960.
McAllister, Chief Judge, dissented.
H. Gilmer Wells, Louisville, Ky., E. J. Wells, Louisville, Ky., on brief, for appellant.
Harry Marselli, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Robert N. Anderson, Carolyn R. Just, Attys. Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief, for appellee.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Judge, and MARTIN and WEICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The taxpayer, Louisville Country Club, Inc., on behalf of its individual members, brought suit in the United States District Court to recover excise taxes paid on a 1956 assessment, levied on its membership to provide funds for improvement of the club property. The issue is whether the assessment should be subjected to the twenty percent excise tax imposed upon club dues by Section 4241(a) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 4241(a) (1).
The case was tried on a stipulation of facts and submitted for decision on the motions for summary judgment filed, respectively, by the appellant taxpayer and the appellee District Director of Internal Revenue.
Thoughtful consideration has been given to the oral arguments and briefs of attorneys and to the facts of the case in relation to applicable law. The conclusion has been reached that the judgment of United States District Judge Brooks granting the motion of the defendant District Director and dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff taxpayer should, for the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion of Judge Brooks, 178 F.Supp. 915, be affirmed.