Case Name: EDWARD P. LUPFER AND FREDERICK N. REMICK, A COPARTNERSHIP DOING BUSINESS AS LUPFER & REMICK, v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1928-06-18
Citations: 66 Ct. Cl. 134
Docket Number: No. F-344
Parties: EDWARD P. LUPFER AND FREDERICK N. REMICK, A COPARTNERSHIP DOING BUSINESS AS LUPFER & REMICK, v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: Moss, Judge; and Booth, Chief Justice, concur.
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 134–136

Head Matter:
EDWARD P. LUPFER AND FREDERICK N. REMICK, A COPARTNERSHIP DOING BUSINESS AS LUPFER & REMICK, v. THE UNITED STATES
[No. F-344.
Decided June 18, 1928]
Mr. George V. Triplett, jr., for the plaintiff. Mr. J. Barrett Garter was on the brief.
Mr. Ralph G. Williamson, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Herman J. Galloway, for the defendant.
Certiorari denied.

Opinion:
GeeeN, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
Section 900 of the revenue act of 1921, 42 Stat. 291, imposed an excise tax upon the sale of automobile trucks by the manufacturer, producer, or importer thereof. There is no question but that the plaintiffs imported the trucks upon which the tax was assessed and sold them within the United States, and the question in the case is whether they thereby became liable for the tax required by this section.
The argument of plaintiffs is that the tax on sales by an importer applies only to articles of foreign manufacture and not to reimported articles of domestic manufacture; also that the law contemplated a single transaction and a single assessment of the tax and that the payment of more than one tax on any truck was not required. It is further argued on behalf of plaintiffs that as the trucks in question were all secondhand, they were not taxable under the Treasury rulings.
There is nothing ,in the act to justify such a construction. Its terms are clear and unmistakable and fix the liability of plaintiffs for the tax. It is quite probable that Congress did not foresee that some of the automobiles shipped abroad for the World War would be brought back to this country and resold, but, if so, this would not justify us in putting a construction on the act that would virtually amount to rewriting it. The law provided that the tax should be paid on the sale of trucks by an importer thereof and this court has no right to engraft exceptions upon it. The tax was properly assessed under the law and plaintiffs' petition must be dismissed. It is so ordered.
Moss, Judge; and Booth, Chief Justice, concur.
Graham, Judge, took no part in the decision of this case.