Alan Saltzman and Those Similarly Situated v. United States of America
Opinion
OPINION
Saltzman seeks for himself and others to recover excise tax paid on telephone service as required by section 4251 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. First Amendment grounds are asserted.
We find no discrimination here such as was proscribed by Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 56 S.Ct. 444, 80 L.Ed. 660 (1936). Absent some apparent discrimination against free speech, we hold the tax properly imposed. Arizona Publishing Co. v. O’Neil, 22 F.Supp. 117 (D.Ariz.), affirmed, 304 U.S. 543, 58 S.Ct. 950, 82 L.Ed. 1518 (1938).
The judgment denying recovery is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
516 F.2d 891 (Alan Saltzman and Those Similarly Situated v. United States of America) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.