Davidson Corp. v. United States

159 Ct. Cl. 421
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedDecember 5, 1962
DocketNos. 177-54 and 546-58; No. 75-59
StatusPublished

This text of 159 Ct. Cl. 421 (Davidson Corp. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davidson Corp. v. United States, 159 Ct. Cl. 421 (cc 1962).

Opinion

Whitaker, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The controversy before us concerns the applicability of an excise tax to certain machines, manufactured by Davidson Corporation prior to 1953, and thereafter by Mergenthaler Linotype Company, of which the Davidson Corporation in 1950 had become a wholly-owned subsidiary. Although Mer-genthaler took over the manufacture of these machines in 1953, with Davidson functioning as a sales subsidiary, the machines continued to be marketed under the Davidson name. Both Davidson and Mergenthaler filed suits in this court for refund of excise taxes each paid during the 1950-1959 period, These suits were consolidated for trial on the merits.

[423]*423The determination of the case depends solely upon the resolution of a single issue: whether certain Davidson machines1 were, during the period covered by the claims, “duplicating machines” within the purview of Section 3406 (a) (6) of the Internal Revenue Code (1939) and its counterpart, Section 4191, Internal Revenue Code (1954), both of which follow.

Internal Revenue Code of 1939:

r-uo 53 H OS?£) O tH M * Hi I® ca • T — Í § o h>J — I 2 'vs t 3 o c «as | Is oT Í | | » g r° H £ ^ • <y-i rgj ° I o c VI *5 ^ 'S <3 lO <D £ CO sllS £> <1 00 oPhH d CO
(а) ImpositioN. — There shall be imposed on the following articles, sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer, a tax equivalent to the rate on the price for which sold, set forth in the following paragraphs (including in each case parts or accessories of such articles sold on or in connection therewith, or with the sale thereof):
* * $ $ 4*
(б) Business and store machines. — Adding machines, addressing machines, autographic registers, bank proof machines, billing machines, bookkeeping machines, calculating machines, card punching machines, cash registers, except cash registers of the type used in registering over-the-counter retail sales, change making machines, check writing machines, check signing machines, check canceling machines, check perforating machines, check cutting machines, check dating machines, other check protector machine devices, computing machines, coin counters, dictographs, dictating machine record shaving machines, duplicating machines, embossing machines, envelope opening machines, erasing machines, folding machines, fanfold machines, fare registers, fare boxes, listing machines, line-a-time and similar machines, mailing machines, multigraph type justifying machines, numbering machines, pencil sharpeners, postal permit mailing machines,_ punch card machines, sorting machines, stencil cutting machines, shorthand writing machines, sealing, machines, tabulating machines, ticket counting machines, ticket issuing machines, typewriters, transcribing machines, time recording devices, and combinations of any of the foregoing, 10 per centum.
[26 TJ.S.C. 1952 ed., Sec. 3406.]

[424]*424Internal Kevenue Code of 1954, Subcbapter E, Part I, Business Machines:

Sec. 4191. ImpositioN op Tax.
There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the following articles (including in each case parts or accessories of such articles sold on or in connection therewith, or with the sale thereof), a tax equivalent to 10 percent of the price for which so sold:
Adding Machines
Addressing machines
Autographic registers
Bank proof machines
Billing machines
Bookkeeping machines
Calculating machines
Card punch machines
Cash registers
Change making machines
Check writing, signing, canceling, perforating, cutting, and dating machines and other check protector machine devices
Computing machines
Coin counters
Dictagraphs
Dictating machines
Dictating machine record shaving machines
Duplicating machines
Embossing machines
Envelope opening machines
Erasing machines
Folding machines
Fanfold machines
Fare registers and boxes
[26 U.S.C. 1958 ed., Sec. 4191.]
Listing machines
Line-a-time and similar machines
Mailing machines
Multigraph machines, typesetting machines and type justifying machines
Numbering machines
Portable paper fastening machines
Payroll machines
Pencil sharpeners
Postal permit mailing machines
Punch card machines
Sorting machines
Stencil cutting machines
Shorthand writing machines
Sealing machines
Tabulating machines
Ticket counting machines
Ticket issuing machines
Typewriters
Transcribing machines
Time recording devices
Combinations of any of the foregoing.

It is the Government’s contention that these machines are store and business machines, i.e., “duplicating machines” which were properly subject to the tax. The plaintiffs take the position that said machines are printing presses and not duplicating machines.

[425]*425It is plaintiffs’ view of the case that once we have classified these machines as either printing presses or “duplicating machines”, such classification determines whether or not the excise tax is applicable. Or, to put it another way, if we should find these machines to be printing presses, it necessarily follows that they were not subject to the excise tax.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
159 Ct. Cl. 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davidson-corp-v-united-states-cc-1962.