Court Opinion

ID: 9446677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:15:57.175322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:44.479259
License: Public Domain

BIGGS, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
The majority opinion turns on the issue of whether the allowance of a federal tax deduction in the amount of the State imposition would frustrate State policy. The majority holds that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania concluded in Keystone Metal Co. v. City of Pittsburgh, 1953, 374 Pa. 323, 97 A.2d 797, and Graybar Electric Co. v. School District of Pittsburgh, 1954, 378 Pa. 294, 106 A.2d 413, that a delay necessitated by a test of the applicability of the statute demonstrated that it was not the policy of Pennsylvania to penalize a taxpayer for delay in the payment of taxes. I cannot perceive such a demonstration, either express or implied, in the decisions cited. I think ,the ease at bar is ruled, as the Tax Court held, by Tank Truck Rentals, Inc. v. Commissioner, 1958, 356 U.S. 30, 78 S.Ct. 507, 2 L.Ed.2d 562, where the taxpayer could not profitably operate its trucks, and Hoover Motor Express Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 38, 78 S.Ct. 511, 2 L.Ed.2d 568, rehearing denied 1953, 356 U.S. 934, 78 S.Ct. 770, 2 L.Ed.2d 763, where the tax evasion was clearly inadvertent. There is no real hardship here and the, policy of Pennsylvania seems exemplified by the fact, contrary to the conclusion of the majority, that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reinstated the penalties *565against the petitioner in the instant case after the lower court had relieved it of them.
For these reasons I must respectfully dissent.