Leighton v. United States

289 U.S. 506, 53 S. Ct. 719, 77 L. Ed. 1350, 1933 U.S. LEXIS 192, 1 C.B. 305, 12 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 62, 3 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 1107
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided May 29, 1933·No. 735·Published·Cited by 49 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 1921 all assets of Leighton and Co., Inc., of California, were sold and the proceeds distributed pro rata among stockholders, including petitioners. Nothing remained ,to satisfy outstanding corporate obligations.

September, 1925, within the time permitted by statute, or written waivers, the Commissioner of Internal Reve *507 nue notified the corporation of tax deficiencies for 1918, .1919, and 1920; and on January 16,1926, he assessed these against it. There was no contest. Efforts to enforce-payment by distraint were unsuccessful. The present equity suit seeks to compel petitioners severally to account for corporate property in order that it may be applied toward ■payment of taxes due by the company. No. assessment was made against any petitioner.

The District Court ruled that the distributed assets constituted a trust fund and adjudged that each petitioner should account for the amount he received, with interest, from January 16, 1926. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment. [61 F. (2d) 530.] The matter comes here by certiorari.

Pertinent provisions of The Revenue Act of 1926, c. 27, 44 Stat. 9, 55, 59, 61, are in the margin. *

Prior to the Revenue Act of 1926, the United States in an equity proceeding might recover from distributees *508 of corporate assets, without .assessment against them, the .-value of what they received in order to discharge taxes assessed against the corporation. Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 592; United States v. Updike, 281 U.S. 489. And this right remained unless taken away by the specific words or clear intendment of the 1926 enactment. United States v. Chamberlain, 219 U.S. 250, 261; United States v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry., 249 Fed. 678, 681.

Petitioners rely upon § 280 of that Act and maintain that while the words- of. this standing alone would not suffice to destroy the right, nevertheless when read in connection with §§ 274 (a) and 278 there is enough cléarly *509 to show the purpbse of Congress to require an assessment against them before suit for restitution. And, further, that the sole remedy available in the present circumstances is the one prescribed by § 28Q.

The meaning of the statute is not free from uncertainty. The insistence presented in behalf of the petitioners is at'' least plausible, but this has been before the courts several times and none has approved it. On the other hand, the right of the United States to proceed against transferees by suit since the Act of 1926 has been definitely recognized. United States v. Updike, 25 F. (2d) 746 (Dist. Ct.); affirmed, C.C.A. 32 F. (2d) 1. Phillips v. Commissioner, 42 F. (2d) 177; affirmed, 283 U.S. 589, 593 (Note); United States v. Greenfield Tap & Die Corp., 27 F. (2d) 933 (Dist. Ct.); United States v. Garfunkel, 52 F. (2d) 727 (Dist. Ct.).

Considering the established rule, of strict construction, the views expressed in the, cases, cited, also (the possible conflict with other statutory provisions pointed out in those opinions, we cannot accept petitioners’ interpretation of the statute. The present suit was properly brought, we think, and the courts below reached thé correct conclusion. There was no abuse of discretion in\ respect of interest. ’

Affirmed.

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

Leighton v. United States, 289 U.S. 506, 53 S. Ct. 719, 77 L. Ed. 1350, 1933 U.S. LEXIS 192, 1 C.B. 305, 12 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 62, 3 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 1107 (1933).

289 U.S. 506 (Leighton v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Untitled Case
E.D. New York, 2026
United States v. Henco Holding Corp.
985 F.3d 1290 (Eleventh Circuit, 2021)
Stuart v. Commissioner
144 T.C. No. 12 (U.S. Tax Court, 2015)
Schussel v. Werfel
758 F.3d 82 (First Circuit, 2014)
United States v. Holmes
727 F.3d 1230 (Tenth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Verduchi
434 F.3d 17 (First Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Perrina
877 F. Supp. 215 (D. New Jersey, 1994)
United States v. Geniviva
16 F.3d 522 (Third Circuit, 1994)
Steinle v. Boeing Co.
785 F. Supp. 1434 (D. Kansas, 1992)
United States v. GULF DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
344 F. Supp. 1148 (S.D. Alabama, 1972)
Thomas Wayne Joyce v. United States
454 F.2d 971 (D.C. Circuit, 1972)
United States v. Russell
327 F. Supp. 632 (United States District Court for the District of Arkansas, 1971)
United States v. 58th Street Plaza Theatre, Inc.
287 F. Supp. 475 (S.D. New York, 1968)
United States v. Goldsmith
272 F. Supp. 924 (E.D. New York, 1967)
United States v. Decker
241 F. Supp. 283 (D. Arizona, 1965)