YELLOW CAB CO.
v.
UNITED STATES AND THREE OTHER CASES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiffs' contentions regarding the unconstitutionality of the capital stock tax statutes were without merit, affirming the dismissal of their claims.
Plaintiffs sought to recover capital stock taxes paid for 1933 and 1934, challenging the constitutionality of the statutes under which the taxes were …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Capital Stock Tax cases and more on FLexlaw
LINDLEY, District Judge.
In these appeals, plaintiffs in four suits, consolidated for hearing in the District Court, seek to reverse judgments dismissing their claims for recovery of capital stock taxes paid for the taxable years 1933 and! 1934 on the ground that Sections 215 and 216 of the National Industrial Recovery-Act, 48 Stat. 207, 208, and Sections 701 and 702 of the Revenue Act of 1934, Title 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Acts, pages 787, 789, under which the taxes were assessed and collected, are unconstitutional.
They make no complaint that the declared' values of their respective capital stocks were unfair, unreasonable or inequitable or that any actual and specific injury has accrued to any of them, but assert that the basis fixed by the Congress for computation of the tax is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory in that the declared value must, under the statute, abide and continue in future years, as to the outcome of which, so far as bearing upon value of capital stock is concerned, only conjecture and guess, wholly unrelated to actual value, can furnish any basis for computation of the tax. They contend also that the acts of Congress in question are retroactive in character. Similar contentions have been denied in other courts, and no factual or legal element not involved in those adjudications is presented in the complaints here.
We agree with the reasoning of these prior decisions and think no good purpose would be served by enlarging upon what they announce.
Consequently, upon the authority of Ray Consol. Copper Co. v. United States, 268 U.S. 373, 45 S.Ct. 526, 69 L.Ed. 1003; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 31 S.Ct. 342, 55 L.Ed. 389, Ann.Cas.1912B, 1312; Edwards v. Chile Copper Co., 270 U.S. 452, 46 S.Ct. 345, 70 L.Ed. 678; La Belle Iron Works v. United States, 256 U.S. 377, 41 S.Ct. 528, 65 L.Ed. 998; Haggar Co. v. Helvering, 308 U.S. 389, 60 S.Ct. 337, 84 L.Ed. 340; generally, and of Servel, Inc., v. United States, Ct.Cl., 35 F.Supp. 466; Utah Oil Refining Co. v. Hinckley, 10 Cir., 121 F. 2d 578; Prime Securities Corp. v. United States, 6 Cir., 119 F. 2d 939; Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. v. McGowan, 2 Cir., 115 F. 2d 953; American Viscose Corp. v. Rothensies, 3 Cir., 121 F. 2d 186, and Briggs-Darby Const. Co. v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 119 F. 2d 89, dealing specifically with contentions similar to those here made, the judgments are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1911)
- Labelle Iron Works v. United States, 256 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1921)
- Haggar Co. v. Helvering, 308 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1940)
- Edwards v. Chile Copper Co., 270 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1926)
- Ray Consol. Copper Co. v. United States, 268 U.S. 373 (U.S. 1925)
- Rochester GAS & Elec. Corp. v. McGOWAN, 115 F.2d 953 (2d Cir. 1940)
- Briggs-Darby Const. Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 119 F.2d 89 (5th Cir. 1941)
- Prime Sec. Corp. v. United States, 119 F.2d 939 (6th Cir. 1941)
- Am. Viscose Corp. v. Rothensies, 121 F.2d 186 (3d Cir. 1941)
- Utah Oil Ref. Co. v. Hinckley, 121 F.2d 578 (10th Cir. 1941)