Smith v. Glenn

W.D. Kentucky

Smith v. Glenn

16 F. Supp. 83, 17 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1371, 1936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1972

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky

DecidedJuly 2, 1936

DocketNo. 1811

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 F. Supp. 83 (Smith v. Glenn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Glenn, 16 F. Supp. 83, 17 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1371, 1936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1972 (W.D. Ky. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

HAMILTON, District Judge.

This cause coming on regularly for trial, and all the facts having been stipulated, Richard C. Stoll, Esq., Wallace Muir, Esq., William H. Townsend, Esq., and James Park, Esq., having appeared as attorneys for the plaintiff; Robert H. Jackson, Assistant Attorney General, Mastin G. White, Solicitor, Department of Agriculture, J. P. Wenchel, Assistant to the Solicitor, Department of Agriculture, Robert B. Tyler, Attorney, Office of the Solicitor, A. M. Wilding-White, Attorney, Office of the Solicitor, and Robert N. Anderson, Special Assistant to the Attorney-General, having appeared on the brief for defendant; and Bunk Gardner, United States Attorney, and Oldham Clarke, Assistant United States Attorney, having appeared as attorneys for defendant; a jury having been duly waived by the parties hereto by a stipulation filed with the clerk of the court, the issues of law and fact herein having been duly tried before the court, the ease duly argued and briefed, motion for special findings of fact having been duly made by counsel on behalf of each of the parties hereto, and the court being fully advised now makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

Findings of Fact

1. The plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Kentucky and a resident of the Eastern District of Kentucky.

2. The defendant, Selden R. Glenn, is a citizen of the state of Kentucky, and a resident of the Western District of Kentucky.

3. The defendant Selden R. Glenn, at the date of filing the original bill of complaint herein and at all times thereafter, has been and is now the duly appointed, qualified, and acting collector of internal revenue for the United States for the Collector’s District of Kentucky.

4. The matter in controversy in this cause amounts to $607.08, exclusive of interest and costs.

5. The plaintiff, during 1930, 1931, 1933, and 1934, has been regularly engaged each year on a farm owned by him in the raising, producing, and selling of Burley tobacco, being tobacco of the kind classified as “Type 31” in service and regulatory announcement No. 118 of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture (hereinafter referred to as “Burley tobacco”), and desires and intends to continue so to do. In each of said years, the plaintiff planted 15 acres of said farm to tobacco, and in each of said years, except 1934, the plaintiff raised approximately 15,000 pounds of tobacco on said farm. In 1934 the plaintiff raised 14,052 pounds of tobacco on said farm.

6. No contract between the plaintiff and the Secretary of Agriculture was entered into. On October 6, 1934, plaintiff filed with the county committee for Fayette county an application for tax-payment warrants for the farm owned by him on which he raised tobacco as aforesaid, under section 5 (b) of the Kerr-Smith Tobacco Act [84]*84(see 7 U.S.C.A. § 755 (b), hereinafter referred to as the act, but this application was rejected and he received no tax-payment warrants. The reasons assigned by said committee for the rejection were: (1) That plaintiff had a base of 11.25 acres which was 15.3 per cent, of his farm. This is a much larger base than the average in the community. And (2) that it would be unfair to the contract signers to give farmers in plaintiff’s position exemption when over 50 per cent, of farmers in Fayette county have a smaller base than plaintiff’s, compared with the size of the farm. A true and correct copy of said application and of the rejection thereof appears as Joint Exhibit 1.

7. Plaintiff, on December 18, 1934, sold 10,606 pounds of Burley tobacco, Type 31, harvested by him subsequent to June 28, 1934, at public auction at the warehouse of Geary-Wright Tobacco Warehouse Company in Lexington, Ky., for the sum of $1,-853.23, which sale was the first bona fide sale of such tobacco. Said warehouse company deducted from said selling price the sum of $463.30, being 25 per cent, thereof, and paid that amount on said date to defendant Selden R. Glenn as collector aforesaid, pursuant to provisions of the ¿err-Smith Tobacco Act (Act of June 28, 1934, c. 868, 48 Stat. 1275, see 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 751-766). Thereafter, on January 2, 1935, plaintiff sold 3,446 pounds of Burley tobacco, Type 31, harvested by him subsequent to June 28, 1934, at public auction at the warehouse of Geary-Wright Tobacco Warehouse Company for the sum of $575.-15, which sale was the first bona fide sale of such tobacco. Said warehouse company deducted from said selling price $143.78, being 25 per cent, thereof, and paid that amount to said defendant pursuant to the provisions of said act. Thereafter, or on March 21, 1935, the plaintiff filed a claim for refund for said taxes, which claim was rejected by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on April 26, 1935.

.8. On July 3, 1934, the Secretary of Agriculture, pursuant to section 3 (a) of said act (7 U.S.C.A. § 753 (a), determined and proclaimed that the declared policy of said act would best be effectuated, by the levy of the tax provided for therein during the crop year 1934-35 at a rate of 25 per cent, of the price for which tobacco, with respect to which the tax is applicable, is sold.

9. The Geary-Wright Tobacco Warehouse Company deducted from the sale price of the tobacco sold by plaintiff, as stated in paragraph 7, above, the sum of $607.08, with which it purchased United States documentary stamps, known as “Tobacco Sales Tax Stamps,” and affixed said stamps to the memoranda of sale of said tobacco to evidence the payment of the tax upon the sale thereof, and canceled said stamps; said tax having been levied pursuant to the provisions of said act and in accordance with the regulations of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Said warehouse company also deducted its warehouse charges from the sale price of the tobacco and paid the balance to plaintiff.

10. The tobacco sold by plaintiff on December 18, 1934, as aforesaid, was all sold to the purchasers and in the amounts and for prices as follows:

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