Inland Pump Mfg. Co. v. United States

Court of Claims

Inland Pump Mfg. Co. v. United States

59 F.2d 261, 75 Ct. Cl. 504, 11 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 441, 1932 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 369, 1932 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9315

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJune 6, 1932

DocketNo. L-388

StatusPublished

This text of 59 F.2d 261 (Inland Pump Mfg. Co. 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

Inland Pump Mfg. Co. v. United States, 59 F.2d 261, 75 Ct. Cl. 504, 11 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 441, 1932 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 369, 1932 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9315 (cc 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

GREEN, Judge.

Plaintiff is a corporation, and at the time involved in this ease was engaged in the manufacture and sale of air pumps. In its petition it asks for the recovery of excise taxes in the sum of $2,508.02 which had been assessed and collected from it on sales of air pumps as accessories for automobiles.

Tbe evidence in the case is quite conflicting. Two experts testified — one for plaintiff and one for defendant — and it is impossible to reconcile their respective conclusions. It also appeared that the original patent under which the pumps were manufactured stated that the invention related more particularly to the type of pumps used for inflating the tires of automobiles, and that one object of the invention was to provide a tire pump which might readily be attached to the running board or other rigid portion of the frame of a vehicle. The pumps were advertised in mail order catalogues as automobile tire pumps, but they were also used and bought for other purposes. The burden of proof was upon the plaintiff to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the pumps in controversy were neither primarily designed for use upon automobiles nor specially adapted for that purpose. See supplemental opinion in the ease of Anthony Co. v. United States, 56 F.(2d) 481, decided by this court March 7, 1932. The findings of fact show and from all of the evidence we have concluded, that the plaintiff has failed to sustain this burden.

It follows that judgment must be rendered dismissing the petition, and it is so ordered.

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

GREEN, Judge.

Plaintiff is a corporation, and at the time involved in this ease was engaged in the manufacture and sale of air pumps. In its petition it asks for the recovery of excise taxes in the sum of $2,508.02 which had been assessed and collected from it on sales of air pumps as accessories for automobiles.

Tbe evidence in the case is quite conflicting. Two experts testified — one for plaintiff and one for defendant — and it is impossible to reconcile their respective conclusions. It also appeared that the original patent under which the pumps were manufactured stated that the invention related more particularly to the type of pumps used for inflating the tires of automobiles, and that one object of the invention was to provide a tire pump which might readily be attached to the running board or other rigid portion of the frame of a vehicle. The pumps were advertised in mail order catalogues as automobile tire pumps, but they were also used and bought for other purposes. The burden of proof was upon the plaintiff to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the pumps in controversy were neither primarily designed for use upon automobiles nor specially adapted for that purpose. See supplemental opinion in the ease of Anthony Co. v. United States, 56 F.(2d) 481, decided by this court March 7, 1932. The findings of fact show and from all of the evidence we have concluded, that the plaintiff has failed to sustain this burden.

It follows that judgment must be rendered dismissing the petition, and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 F.2d 261, 75 Ct. Cl. 504, 11 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 441, 1932 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 369, 1932 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inland-pump-mfg-co-v-united-states-cc-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack