GULF REFINING CO.
v.
FOX, TAX COMMISSIONER
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.
West Virginia's Chain Store Tax Act imposed a graduated license tax on mercantile establishments owned or controlled by the same entity, and the Supreme Court affirmed lower court decisions that gasoline filling stations operated by Gulf Refining Company and Ashland Refining Company under various lease, license, and agency arrangements constituted "stores" subject to the tax under the statute's definition of control. The Court held that the factual findings of the District Court regarding whether the oil companies exercised sufficient control over the filling stations to trigger the tax were not clearly erroneous and therefore upheld the taxation.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
These suits were brought to restrain the enforcement of a statute of West Virginia known as the “Chain Store Tax Act,” imposing a graduated license tax upon “stores,” which are defined as including any mercantile establishments “which are owned, operated,' maintained and/or controlled by the same person, firm, corporation, copartnership or association.” Acts of 1933, c. 36. In a companion case, this Court sustained the constitutional validity of the statute and also decided that gasoline filling stations were stores or mercantile establishments within its purview. Fox v. Standard Oil Co., 294 U. S. 87. There remained, in the instant cases, the question whether certain filling stations, particularly described, were stores belonging to, operated or controlled by the complainants, respectively.
On the appeal to this Court in the case of the Gulf Refining Company, it appeared that this question had not been determined by the District Court and, on the reversal of its decree, the cause was remanded .to the District Court that it might consider and decide that issue. Fox v. Gulf Refining Co., 295 U. S. 75.
The question, in the case of the Gulf Refining Company, related to 568 filling stations operated under particular arrangements with “Authorized Licensed Dealers.” These arrangements were evidenced by a lease of the premises from the dealer to the company, a. license by the company to the dealer for retail sale of the company’s products on the premises, a contract for sales by the company to the dealer, and various receipts for 'equipment and forms of riders. On considering the terms and effect of these agreements, the District Court, of three judges, decided that the stations were controlled by the Gulf Refining Company within the meaning of the statute. 11 F. Supp. 425.
In the case of the Ashland Refining Company, the question related to 82 filling stations. The company conceded that by the original leases and agency agreements covering these stations the dealer was made the agent of the company and sold its products on a consignment basis. But the company contended that, before the taxing statute was enacted, the parties had abandoned that arrangement and that the company was selling its products outright to the dealers and was not exercising control over the stations. The modification of the earlier agreements was not in writing, but was shown by a stipulation of facts. The District Court considered the nature, and effect of the stated modification and'decided that the stations were still operated or controlled by' the company within the meaning of the act. 11 F. Supp. 431.
Appeals have been taken directly to this Court. 28 U. S. C. 380. The questions involved are purely state questions with respect to the application of the statute to particular instances in the light of the facts disclosed. On examining the record in each case, we find no sufficient ground for disturbing the rulings of the District Court. The decrees are severally
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. Herndon, 151 Fla. 657 (Fla. 1942)…ompany had nothing whatever to do with the management or control of Herndon’s business. The presumption in the quoted provision is a [*661] rebuttable one and the record does so completely in this case. We have examined Ashland Refining Co. v. Fox, 297 U. S. 381, 56 Sup. Ct. 510, 80 L. Ed. 731; Bedford v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 104 Colo. 424, 91 Pac. (2nd) 475; State v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc.......Idaho......, 120 Pac. (2nd) 630; relied on by appellant and they are predicated on factual situations different from…1 / 2
-
Gulf Ref. Co. v. Brown, 93 F.2d 870 (4th Cir. 1938)…e agreements with numerous dealers and yet retained practical control over the operation of the stations with the result that it was held subject to the taxing provisions of a chain store act. Gulf Refining Co. v. Fox, D.C., 11 F.Supp. 425, affirmed 297 U.S. 381, 56 S.Ct. 510, 80 L.Ed. 731. If anything else were needed in the pending case to fix the liability of the oil company, it is found in the fact that the negligent conduct which led to the death of the decedent was performed in the course of a sale o…
-
Maxwell v. Shell E. Petroleum Prods., Inc., 90 F.2d 39 (4th Cir. 1937)…sale therein either in the lease, sub-lease, or by separate contract.” In aid of the interpretation of the statute, the decisions in Gulf Refining Co. v. Fox (D.C.) 11 F.Supp. 425, and Ashland Refining Co. v. Fox (D.C.) 11 F.Supp. 431, affirmed in 297 U.S. 381, 56 S.Ct. 510, 80 L.Ed. 731, are of value. The West Virginia Chain Store Act (Acts W.Va.1933, c. 36) imposed license fees in a graduated scale upon every person who operated or maintained one or more stores under the same general management, supervi…
Authorities Cited
- FOX v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1935)
- Fox v. Gulf Ref. Co., 295 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1935)