Distinctive Theatres of Columbus, Inc. v. Looker

165 F. Supp. 410, 2 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6478, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3701
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedJuly 17, 1958
DocketCiv. No. 4353
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 165 F. Supp. 410 (Distinctive Theatres of Columbus, Inc. v. Looker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Distinctive Theatres of Columbus, Inc. v. Looker, 165 F. Supp. 410, 2 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6478, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3701 (S.D. Ohio 1958).

Opinion

CECIL, District Judge.

This case was submitted to the Court upon the pleadings, stipulation of facts, briefs of counsel and motions of the respective parties for summary judgment. The plaintiff seeks to recover from the Government approximately $4,-000. which it claims was illegally collected as an amusement tax.

The question arises out of the manner in which the plaintiff operated the Little Theatre in Columbus, Ohio, for the period in question. During this period, the plaintiff had no box office attendant and did not sell tickets for admission to the entertainment conducted inside of the theatre. Instead, a sign was placed on the box office window reading: “Admission Free. You may donate any amount you wish — As you Leave the Theatre.”

In the rear of the theatre, as the patrons left, was a large fish bowl to receive donations and a similar sign as was placed on the box office window. This same message was flashed from the screen during the progress of the entertainment. It is stated in the stipulation of facts that one of the specific purposes of this new policy “was to avoid payment of the Federal Excise Tax on Admissions.”

The question is whether or not this is an Admission under Section 1700 of Title 26 U.S.C. This section reads: “A tax of 1 cent for each 10 cents or major fraction thereof of the amount paid for admission to any place, including admission by season ticket or subscription.”

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

Related

Clayton v. Kervick
244 A.2d 281 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1968)
Essex Cty. Retail v. City of Newark, Etc.
185 A.2d 404 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
165 F. Supp. 410, 2 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6478, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/distinctive-theatres-of-columbus-inc-v-looker-ohsd-1958.