UNITED STATES
v.
RINDSKOPF
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 Supreme Court reversed a judgment in a tax collection case involving unpaid taxes on distilled spirits, holding that an Internal Revenue Commissioner's assessment constitutes only prima facie evidence of tax liability and is not conclusive; the defendant could rebut the assessment by showing that fewer spirits were distilled or that taxes were paid, and the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the government was entitled to recover the exact amount assessed or nothing at all.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Field,
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
. The bill of exceptions in this case sets forth the charge of the court below in full, in: disregard of our frequent condemnation of this' practice. Only the parts to which the exceptions relate should have, been given; all else is unnecessary, and produces only inconvenience. We repeat of this practice what we said of another practice not-uncommon, and equally objectionable,— that of inserting the entire evidence in the record: “ If counsel will not heed our admonitions upon this subject, so frequently expressed by us, the judges of the courts below, to whom the bills are presented, should withhold their signatures until the bills are prepared in proper form, freed from all matter not-essential to explain and point the exceptions.” Lincoln v. Laflin, 7 Wall. 132, 137.
The assessment of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was only prima facie evidence of the amount due as taxes upon the spirits distilled between-the dates .mentioned. It established a prima facie case of liability against the distiller,- and . nothing more. If not impeached, it .was sufficient to justify a recovery; but every material fact upon which his. liability was asserted wks open to contestation. He and his sureties were at liberty to show that no spirits,.or a. less quantity than that stated by the commissioner, were distilled within the period-mentioned, and thus entirely, or in part, overthrow the assessment. They were also at liberty to show a payment of the tax assessed, in whole or in part, and thus discharge or reduce the distiller’s liability. To the extent, however, in which the •assessment was not impaired, it was evidence of the amount due. The court, therefore, erred in instructing the jury that the assessment was to be taken and considered in its entirety, and that the government was entitled to recover the exact amount assessed, or not-any sum. In other respects the charge, as. given above, correctly presents the law.
There may undóubtedly be cases where an assessment • must stand as an entirety, or not at all; as where an erroneous rate-has been adopted by the officer; ok where it is impossible to separate from the property assessed the part-which is exempt from the tax; or where its validity depends upon the jurisdiction of the commissioner. The present case does not fall within either of these classes. Here the question is as to the quantity of-spirits produced on which taxes were not paid.'
•The decree in the equity suit was properly-held not to be a bár to. the prosecution of this action in the absence of proof that the assessment which it .adjudged invalid covered the spirit's upon which the assessment-here was made. . The .instruction to-the - jury deprived it of any weight as evidence-with them.
Judgment reversed', and cause-remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (53 total)
-
Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1935)…arily made may reasonably be deemed sufficient to require the board to set it aside. Cf. Bruce & Human Drug Co., 1 B. T. A. 342. Acorn Refining Co., 2 B. T. A. 253. Index Notion Co., 3 B. T. A. 90. The commissioner cites United States v. Rindskopf, 105 U. S. 418; United, States v. Anderson, 269 U. S. 422, 443; Reinecke v. Spalding, 280 U. S. 227, 232-233. The first of these may be put aside without discussion as having no bearing upon the point here in controversy.. The other two were adequately distinguish…
-
Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370 (U.S. 1892)…ulings upon the issues involved.” If he objects to a specific portion of a charge, he should state only that portion. Putting in the whole charge is clearly against rule 4 of this court, and has been explicitly condemned. United States v. Rindskopf, 105 U. S. 418. Indeed, the single function of a bill of exceptions is to bring upon the record so much of the proceedings as will disclose the precise question which the party desires to have ruled upon, and, when prepared by counsel and presented to the court, i…
-
Wickwire v. Reinecke, 275 U.S. 101 (U.S. 1927)…d by the Circuit Court of. Appeals, the ruling of the trial court was erroneous, and that the decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was not conclusive, but only furnished prima fade evidence of its correctnéss. United States v. Rindskopf, 105 U. S. 418; Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Lucas, 7 Fed. (2d) 146. Upon the issue, whether the transfer had been •made in contemplation of death, the burden of proof was by the terms of the statute on the'petitioner, as indeed it would have been without the…
Previewing 3 of 53 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lincoln v. Claflin, 7 Wall. 132 (U.S. 1868)