Clay Products, Inc. v. United States

52 F.2d 1033, 72 Ct. Cl. 670, 2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 809, 10 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 550, 1931 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 278
United States Court of Claims·Decided October 20, 1931·No. No. K-444·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff bases its right to recover the tax levied and collected at the rate of 2 cents per share upon the issuance of its no par value common stock upon the ground that the tax is confiscatory, in that it is levied without regard to the actual value of the stock upon the issuance of which the tax is collected.

The failure of Congress to measure the tax by the aetual value of the shares of stock issued affords no basis for the court to declare the tax unconstitutional. The fact that a particular tax bears heavily upon a corporation, or a class of corporations, is not, of itself, a sufficient reason for a tax to be declared unconstitutional. Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533,19 L. Ed. 482; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 166, 31 S. Ct. 342, 55 L. Ed. 389, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312. The petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Clay Products, Inc. v. United States, 52 F.2d 1033, 72 Ct. Cl. 670, 2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 809, 10 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 550, 1931 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 278 (cc 1931).

52 F.2d 1033 (Clay Products, Inc. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1969
North American Company v. Green
120 So. 2d 603 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1960)
Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Amos
141 So. 153 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)