Court Opinion

ID: 9416992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:59:42.181774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:34.709763
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD,
with whom concurred Justices SWAYNE, DAYIS, and STRONG, dissenting:
I dissent from the opinion and judgment of the court in this case because the evidence offered by the distiller to show that the assessment in question covered eight days in which his distillery could not be operated was not an answer to the whole declaration; nor could it be, as the assessment was for a deficiency and covered the regular tax for a whole month.
Suppose the evidence was admissible, still if it had been admitted it would only have shown that the'assessment was excessive in amount, in which state of the case all will agree, I suppose, that the defence must have failed, as the ease showed that no appeal had ever been taken to the Secretary of the Treasury, as required by the act of Congress.
Such must be the rule, else it will follow that nothing can be collected of the taxpayer in any case where the assessment is for an amount greater than that authorized by law, which is a proposition at war with the whole system of Federal taxation.