Donald Kalish v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Donald Kalish v. United States

411 F.2d 606, 23 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2003, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12698

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 23, 1969

Docket22886

StatusPublished

Cited by35 cases

This text of 411 F.2d 606 (Donald Kalish v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Donald Kalish v. United States, 411 F.2d 606, 23 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2003, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12698 (9th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the action of the district court in granting appellee’s motion to dismiss.

This case involves a claim for refund of Federal Excise Tax in the amount of $4.92 paid by the appellant for telephone service, because he claims that the taxing statute (Tax Adjustment Act of 1966, P.L. 89-368, 80 Stat. 38, 66, § *607 202(a)) is unconstitutional in that Congress was motivated to enact the statute to raise funds for use in the Vietnamese war effort. From that platform appellant launches an attack on the constitutionality of the Vietnam war. We do not reach the constitutional questions, because appellant cannot thus raise them. (Cf. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968).) He has established the first nexus required (a taxpayer attacking a federal spending program) but not the second required nexus, because there was no allegation that Congress, in enacting the Tax Adjustment Act of 1966, “had breached a specific limitation upon its taxing and spending power.” Id. at 104-105, 88 S. Ct. at 1955. Hence, appellant had no standing to sue.

Nothing on the face of the statute states the purpose for which the revenue will be used. It is merely a general excise tax statute. We will not probe the legislative history to unearth a claimed improper motive in the enactment of a statute to overturn an otherwise valid statute. (United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S.Ct. 1673) See also: Luftig v. McNamara, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 4, 373 F.2d 664 (1967); United States v. Hogans, 369 F.2d 359, 360 (2d Cir. 1966).

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

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the action of the district court in granting appellee’s motion to dismiss.

This case involves a claim for refund of Federal Excise Tax in the amount of $4.92 paid by the appellant for telephone service, because he claims that the taxing statute (Tax Adjustment Act of 1966, P.L. 89-368, 80 Stat. 38, 66, § *607 202(a)) is unconstitutional in that Congress was motivated to enact the statute to raise funds for use in the Vietnamese war effort. From that platform appellant launches an attack on the constitutionality of the Vietnam war. We do not reach the constitutional questions, because appellant cannot thus raise them. (Cf. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968).) He has established the first nexus required (a taxpayer attacking a federal spending program) but not the second required nexus, because there was no allegation that Congress, in enacting the Tax Adjustment Act of 1966, “had breached a specific limitation upon its taxing and spending power.” Id. at 104-105, 88 S. Ct. at 1955. Hence, appellant had no standing to sue.

Nothing on the face of the statute states the purpose for which the revenue will be used. It is merely a general excise tax statute. We will not probe the legislative history to unearth a claimed improper motive in the enactment of a statute to overturn an otherwise valid statute. (United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S.Ct. 1673) See also: Luftig v. McNamara, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 4, 373 F.2d 664 (1967); United States v. Hogans, 369 F.2d 359, 360 (2d Cir. 1966).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

411 F.2d 606, 23 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2003, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-kalish-v-united-states-ca9-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack