United States v. Ritchie

D. Maryland

United States v. Ritchie

27 F. Cas. 818, 4 Chi. Leg. News 139, 15 Int. Rev. Rec. 43, 1872 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54

DecidedJanuary 13, 1872

StatusPublished

This text of 27 F. Cas. 818 (United States v. Ritchie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Ritchie, 27 F. Cas. 818, 4 Chi. Leg. News 139, 15 Int. Rev. Rec. 43, 1872 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54 (D. Md. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

GILES, District Judge,

decided that under the case relied on by the defendant (The Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. [78 U. S.] 113) his [819]*819compensation as state’s attorney was not liable to the income tax, that the office of state’s attorney was established by the constitution of the state, and was one of the means and instrumentalities for carrying on the state government, with respect to which the powers of the state are independent of the general government, and that the United States has no more right to tax these agencies than the state government has to tax the means and agencies of carrying on the federal government

Judge GILES also held that the United States could not apply the compensation of a state officer to the satisfaction of the exemption alone, because that would, indirectly, make his income from such source liable to the taxation from which it is exempt; that to exhaust the exemption clause by taking the amount out of his official income, would be to make it, in effect, subject to the revenue law, and to deny to a state’s officer the advantage of the state’s exemption, and that therefore the official income of defendant was not to be taken into consideration in the assessment of the tax. Por these reasons Judge GILES held that defendant was entitled to judgment

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

GILES, District Judge,

decided that under the case relied on by the defendant (The Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. [78 U. S.] 113) his [819]*819compensation as state’s attorney was not liable to the income tax, that the office of state’s attorney was established by the constitution of the state, and was one of the means and instrumentalities for carrying on the state government, with respect to which the powers of the state are independent of the general government, and that the United States has no more right to tax these agencies than the state government has to tax the means and agencies of carrying on the federal government

Judge GILES also held that the United States could not apply the compensation of a state officer to the satisfaction of the exemption alone, because that would, indirectly, make his income from such source liable to the taxation from which it is exempt; that to exhaust the exemption clause by taking the amount out of his official income, would be to make it, in effect, subject to the revenue law, and to deny to a state’s officer the advantage of the state’s exemption, and that therefore the official income of defendant was not to be taken into consideration in the assessment of the tax. Por these reasons Judge GILES held that defendant was entitled to judgment

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 F. Cas. 818, 4 Chi. Leg. News 139, 15 Int. Rev. Rec. 43, 1872 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ritchie-mdd-1872.