United States v. William Douglas Walker and John C. Pace, Trading and Doing Business as Walker and Pace

Fifth Circuit

United States v. William Douglas Walker and John C. Pace, Trading and Doing Business as Walker and Pace

234 F.2d 910, 49 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1668, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5077

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 15, 1956

Docket15926_1

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 234 F.2d 910 (United States v. William Douglas Walker and John C. Pace, Trading and Doing Business as Walker and Pace) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. William Douglas Walker and John C. Pace, Trading and Doing Business as Walker and Pace, 234 F.2d 910, 49 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1668, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5077 (5th Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the trial court, sitting without a jury, granting a recovery to appellees for a refund of transportation taxes, illegally collected from them as proprietors of fishing boats for hire, is affirmed. The legality of this tax as applied to operators of fishing boats for hire was tested in Smith v. United States, D.C., 110 F.Supp. 892. In that case the court below found that the tax had been illegally asserted in the case of operators of fishing boats. The decision was not appealed.

The present case is one of several suits brought against the United States for a recovery of the taxes that were paid by fishing boat operators prior to the court’s decision , in the Smith case.

The statute requires that a recovery of taxes collected by virtue of the Transportation Tax Act can be had only upon proof that the taxpayer repaid the amount of such tax to the person from whom he collected it or obtained the consent of such person to the allowance of such credit or refund. 1 The taxpayers here sought to avoid the application of this statute by asserting that they had paid the taxes out of their personal funds and had not collected them from their patrons. Both the taxpayers and the Government conceded in argument here that the sole issue before the trial court was whether the taxpayer had borne the economic burden of the tax. On this question of fact the trial court found with the taxpayer. Although the state of the record is far from satisfactory, since much of the evidence introduced in the court below came in as a part of background testimony relating to many different pending cases, neither the Government nor the taxpayers sought to have the record enlarged by adding other proceedings in the trial court. Although the evidence in support of appellees’ position was weak, it was nevertheless sufficient to support the finding of the trial court in their favor. We cannot hold that this finding was clearly erroneous.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

1

. 26 U.S.C.A. (1952 ed.) § 3471. See United States v. Walls, 5 Cir., 231 F.2d 440.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the trial court, sitting without a jury, granting a recovery to appellees for a refund of transportation taxes, illegally collected from them as proprietors of fishing boats for hire, is affirmed. The legality of this tax as applied to operators of fishing boats for hire was tested in Smith v. United States, D.C., 110 F.Supp. 892. In that case the court below found that the tax had been illegally asserted in the case of operators of fishing boats. The decision was not appealed.

The present case is one of several suits brought against the United States for a recovery of the taxes that were paid by fishing boat operators prior to the court’s decision , in the Smith case.

The statute requires that a recovery of taxes collected by virtue of the Transportation Tax Act can be had only upon proof that the taxpayer repaid the amount of such tax to the person from whom he collected it or obtained the consent of such person to the allowance of such credit or refund. 1 The taxpayers here sought to avoid the application of this statute by asserting that they had paid the taxes out of their personal funds and had not collected them from their patrons. Both the taxpayers and the Government conceded in argument here that the sole issue before the trial court was whether the taxpayer had borne the economic burden of the tax. On this question of fact the trial court found with the taxpayer. Although the state of the record is far from satisfactory, since much of the evidence introduced in the court below came in as a part of background testimony relating to many different pending cases, neither the Government nor the taxpayers sought to have the record enlarged by adding other proceedings in the trial court. Although the evidence in support of appellees’ position was weak, it was nevertheless sufficient to support the finding of the trial court in their favor. We cannot hold that this finding was clearly erroneous.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

1

. 26 U.S.C.A. (1952 ed.) § 3471. See United States v. Walls, 5 Cir., 231 F.2d 440.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 F.2d 910, 49 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1668, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-william-douglas-walker-and-john-c-pace-trading-and-doing-ca5-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack