Court Opinion

ID: 9445730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:37:12.127476+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:23.535746
License: Public Domain

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge
(concurring) .
I think we must hold here as Judge Denman holds. I have been troubled by *624what we might have done if our case were that during the critical period examined the beer taxes had been raised, the beer taxes successfully passed on to the consumer, and thereby it should be contended the taxpayer’s base of growth would have enabled it, solely by means of the added tax, to qualify for the growth exemptions from excess profits taxes. What would we do? I now think we would have to let the taxpayer out of his excess profits taxes. In a market where the government tells a producer that out of every two dollars you sell your beer for, one dollar is for me and one is for you, we get an unfair result for Lucky Lager and we would get an unfair result in the ease I suggest.
Also, I am impressed with the gross inequity we have between Lucky Lager and some competitor who may have attained the necessary growth by the accident that his beer was sold mostly in export. The latter’s beer goes out free from the tax. In a practical concept, here Lucky Lager collected the tax from American beer drinkers for the government. But my practical concept :1s not the legal concept.
I reluctantly agree with Judge DEN-MAN’S construction.