WAINER ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES
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.
Petitioners convicted of operating a wholesale liquor business without paying the required federal excise tax challenged whether the tax statute had been repealed by the National Prohibition Act. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the Willis-Campbell Act reenacted pre-prohibition revenue statutes imposing the liquor business tax because they were not in direct conflict with prohibition law, and that the government may validly impose an excise tax on an activity regardless of whether that activity is simultaneously prohibited.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced in the District Court under an indictment, the second count of which charged them with conducting the business of wholesale liquor dealers without having paid the special tax imposed by the federal revenue laws. The judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.1 Certiorari was granted limited to the question whether the statute upon which the second count of the indictment was based was repealed by the National Prohibition Act2 and has not been reenacted. Many of the existing revenue acts imposing taxes in respect of manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors were superseded by the National Prohibition Act.3 The effect of § 5 of the Willis-Campbell Act was to reenact all such laws in existence when national prohibition became effective, save such as were in direct conflict with any provision of the National Prohibition Act or the Willis-Campbell Act.5 The statutes taxing the business of conducting a wholesale liquor business and imposing the penalties for so doing without the payment of the tax6 were not in direct conflict with the prohibition act and were, therefore, reenacted.7 The difficulty of paying the excise upon the privilege of carrying on a business which is prohibited does not preclude the prescription of sanctions for non-payment.8 Petitioners insist it is a contradiction in terms to say the laws of the United States at the same time prohibit and license an occupation. The contention is based on misconception of the nature of the exaction. The United States has not licensed the liquor business but, as is clearly within its power, has laid an excise upon the doing of the business whether lawfully or unlawfully conducted.9 The judgment is Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 82 F. (2d) 305.
Act of October 28, 1919, c. 85, 41 Stat. 305, U.
S. C. Tit. 27, passim.
United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U. S.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Iva Ikuko Toguri D'Aquino v. United States, 192 F.2d 338 (9th Cir. 1951)…es former jeopardy. This contention obviously is without any basis whatever. McCarthy v. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 85 F. 2d 640, certiorari denied 299 U.S. 610, 57 S.Ct. 313, 81 L.Ed. 450; Wainer v. United States, 7 Cir., 82 F. 2d 305, affirmed 299 U.S. 292, 57 S.Ct. 79, 81 L.Ed. 58; Dixon v. United States, 8 Cir., 7 F. 2d 818; United States v. Rossi, 9 Cir., 39 F. 2d 432. 3. Loss of scripts and records. Appellant asserts that this year’s imprisonment in Japan must be considered in conjunction with the fact that…
-
United States v. Battaglia, 394 F.2d 304 (7th Cir. 1968)…posed by Judge Mathes for the use of the District Courts. 20 F.R.D. 244. Such cautionary instructions were advocated in United States v. Bucur, 194 F. 2d 297, 305 (7th Cir. 1952); Wainer v. United States, 82 F. 2d 305, 308 (7th Cir. 1936), affirmed, 299 U.S. 92, 57 S.Ct. 79, 81 L.Ed. 58, and Ruvel v. United States, 12 F. 2d 264, 265 (7th Cir. 1926). Battaglia relies on United States v. Balodimas, 177 F. 2d 485, 487 (7th Cir. 1949), but there the district judge termed two named witnesses as accomplices. Her…
-
Edgmon v. United States, 87 F.2d 13 (10th Cir. 1936)…etail liquor dealer, * * * without having paid the special tax as required by law shall, for every such offense, be fined not less than $100 nor more than $5,000 and imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than two years.” In Wainer v. U. S., 57 S.Ct. 79, 80, 81 L.Ed. - (decided November 9, 1936), the court said: “The difficulty of paying the excise upon the privilege of carrying on a business which is prohibited does not preclude the prescription of sanctions for nonpayment. Petitioners insist it…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. One Ford Coupe Automobile, 272 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1926)
- United States v. Stafoff, 260 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1923)
- United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U.S. 450 (U.S. 1921)
- United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (U.S. 1935)
- Bailey v. United States, 5 F.2d 437 (5th Cir. 1925)
- Anderson v. United States, 30 F.2d 485 (5th Cir. 1929)
- Wainer v. United States, 82 F.2d 305 (7th Cir. 1936)