McClintock v. Westover

73 F. Supp. 713
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedOctober 16, 1947
DocketNo. 5114
StatusPublished

This text of 73 F. Supp. 713 (McClintock v. Westover) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McClintock v. Westover, 73 F. Supp. 713 (S.D. Cal. 1947).

Opinion

HARRISON, District Judge.

The above case came on regularly for trial on July 9, 1946, before the above-entitled Court, sitting without aid or intervention of a jury; the plaintiffs appearing by Richard K. Yeamans, Esquire, and the defendant appearing by James M. Carter, United States Attorney for the Southern District of California, E. H. Mitchell and George M. Bryant, Assistant United States Attorneys for said District, and Loren P. Oakes, Special Attorney for the Bureau of Internal Revenue; and the trial having proceeded, and oral and documentary evidence on behalf of plaintiffs having been submitted to the Court for consideration and decision and the Court on August 26, 1946, having rendered its memorandum opinion herein, and the Court from the foregoing evidence, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

Findings of Fact.

1. At all times material herein, the plaintiffs were and now are, copartners doing business under the firm name and style of McClintock Display Co., and have fully complied with the provisions of Sections 2466-2468 of the Civil Code of the State of California by filing a certificate of fictitious name with the County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles, State of California and publishing the same as required by law.

2. The taxes sued for herein were paid to defendant in his official capacity as Collector of Internal Revenue for the Sixth Collection District of California and at all times material herein, the defendant was such Collector of Internal Revenue.

3. At all times material herein the plaintiffs have been engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and leasing certain rubber articles, which were used for decorative purposes in numerous meat markets, delicatessens and similar establishments which were plaintiffs’ customers.

4. On March 10, 1943, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed against the plaintiffs the amounts of $22,507.23, $5,417.54 and $1,001.54 representing respectively tax penalty and interest for the period October 1, 1941 through October 31, 1942, with respect to the Federal excise taxes on rubber articles imposed by Section 3406(a) (7) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.AJnt.Rev.Code, § 3406(a) (7).

The net dollar amount of sales made by plaintiffs in each of the months herein in question and the amount of tax due and [714]*714payable thereon at the close of each of said months is as follows:

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 F. Supp. 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclintock-v-westover-casd-1947.