Miller v. United States

188 F. Supp. 440, 6 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6218, 1960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4608
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedOctober 28, 1960
DocketNo. 57 C 1255
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 F. Supp. 440 (Miller v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Miller v. United States, 188 F. Supp. 440, 6 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6218, 1960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4608 (N.D. Ill. 1960).

Opinion

PERRY, District Judge.

The above-entitled action came on for-trial before this Court without a jury and plaintiffs were represented by their-attorney, Robert Downing, and the defendant and counter-claimant, United: States of America, appeared by its attorney, R. Tieken, United States Attor-. ney for the Northern District of Illinois, and was represented by Harvey M. Silets,. Assistant United States Attorney.

The Court after carefully considering-the pleadings, the answers to the various . interrogatories, the testimony and the evidence offered, finds the following facts , to be true and correct, and based thereon reaches the following conclusions of law:-

Findings of Fact

1. This is a suit of a civil nature against the United States of America a sovereign power, for the recovery of cabaret taxes, alleged to have been erroneously, excessively and illegally assessed and collected pursuant to Section 1700 (e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C.A. § 1700(e).

2. For the period November 1, 1949 ■ through May 31, 1953 the plaintiffs, Her-schell Miller and Ross Miller operated the Silver Palm as a tavern and cabaret, at 1117 Wilson Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. During that period of time liquid beverages were sold to customers. Entertainment was provided during certain of the. hours.

[441]*4413. The books and records of the Silver Palm were maintained in a manner which set forth the receipts as follows:

(a) The amount for the barroom un-der the caption, “Bar.”

(b) The amount for the entertainment room under the caption, “Show” and “After-Show.”

'The books and records of the Silver Palm show the total for each of the separate classifications by month. The amount of cabaret tax for the sales recorded under the caption, “Show” was recorded separately for each month.

4. Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1 through 11 are the ledger sheets of the plaintiffs for the period April 1950 through May 1953. According to the books and records of the Silver Palm the following is a list of the receipts by classification and cabaret tax collected and paid as separated by each month:

Date Bar Show Cabaret Tax After Show
1949
November $3,419.45 $6,100.05 $1,220.05 $4,202.65
December 3,583.60 6,217.50 1,243 30 3,756.95
$7,003.05 $12,317.55 $2,463.35 $7,959.60
1950
January 3,382.90 6,338.15 1,267.60 4,193.10
February 3,037.25 5,746.87 1,149.38 3,868.35
March 3,353.15 6,201.40 1,240.30 4,128.10
April 3,444.65 6,535.00 1,307.00 4,552.20
May 3,478.80 6,127.35 1,225.45 4,841.35
June 3,295.80 6,207.85 1,241.55 4,123.10
July 3,484.90 6,287.95 1,257.60 5,029.60
August 3,623.25 6,435.00 1,287.00 5,255.85
September 3,410.80 6,095.10 1,210.10 5,132.00
October 3,344.40 6,160.80 1,232.15 4,426.30
November 3,083.80 5,479.40 1,095.85 4,219.75
December 3,250.45 5,578.85 1,115.75 3,788.70
$40,190.15 $73,193.72 $14,638.73 $53,558.40
1951
January $ 3,198.15 $ 2,394.09 $ 478.81 $ 8,429.60
February 2,750.05 1,567.30 313.46 8,446.20
March 3,042.70 1,863.34 372.66 8,905.00
April 3,153.85 1,381.65 276.33 9,589.20
May 3,388.75 1,392.71 278.54 9,409.55
June 3,552.10 1,623.16 324.64 9,726.30
July 3,509.40 1,244.17 248.83 9,342.10
August 3,524.05 1,474.42 294.88 10,416.25
September 3,393.25 1,439.13 287.82 10,724.95
October 3,426.00 1,509.15 301.82 10,802.35
November 3,384.95 1,362.41 272.84 9,3i3.80
December 3,635.08 1,194.34 238.86 9,209.45
$39,938.33 $18,445.87 $3,689.49 $114,434.75
1952
January $ 3,343.87 $ 1,375.14 $ 269.00 $ 9,326.26
February 2,933.60 1,181.90 241.81 9,216.00
March 3,067.40 1,253.42 250.68 9,353.85
April 3,014.05 1,173.92 234.78 8,853.00
May 3,135.10 1,277.63 255.52 10,521.45
June 3,121.65 1,155.45 231.10 9,235.05
July 3,253.00 1,058.30 211.65 9,234.95
August 3,272.30 1,186.50 237.30 10,310.90
September 3,194.00 1,104.86 220.99 ' 8,909.30
October 3,091.95 1,073.38 214.67 8,372.35
November 2,582.71 - 1,060.71 212.14 8,447.40
December 2,594.00 885.38 177.07 7,463.25
$36,603.63 $13,786.59 $2,756.71 $109,243.76
1953
January $2,192.90 $ 1,167.84 $ 233.56 $ 8,491.75
February 1,966.80 1,061.50 , 272.30 7,353.60
March 1,975.19 951.92 190.38 7,473.85
April 1,969.90 1,031.79 206.36 6,961 90
May 2,086.45 1,176.67 235 53 8,129.70
$10,191.24 $ 5,389.72 $1,138.13 $38,410.80

[442]*442The cabaret tax was paid on the basis of the receipts recorded by the plaintiffs under the caption entitled, “Show.” No cabaret tax was paid by the plaintiffs for the amounts recorded as payments under the caption entitled, “After-Show.”

5. The interior of the Silver Palm was physically arranged as follows:

A barroom which contained stools at the bar and a few booths.

A separate room in which the entertainment was provided, which had a bar, booths, tables and chairs.

6. On December 30, 1955 the then District Director of Internal Revenue issued an assessment for the period from November 1, 1949 through June 30, 1952 in the amount of $35,925.69 with interest in the amount of $9,471.13. This assessment was computed essentially upon the Government’s contention that the following receipts from the entertainment room recorded in the books and records of the plaintiff (except as otherwise indicated) under the heading “After-Show” were subject to the excise tax:

1949 November-Deeember (estimated) ! 6,749.95
1950 • 12 Months (January-March estimated) 43,682.43
1951 12 Months 114,434.75
1952 , January-June 56,505.61

Notice and • demand for payment was mailed to the last known address of the plaintiffs on December 30, 1955.

7.

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

Related

Iroquois Gardens, Inc. v. United States
197 F. Supp. 94 (W.D. Kentucky, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 F. Supp. 440, 6 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6218, 1960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-united-states-ilnd-1960.