Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WILSON & CO. v. UNITED STATES *FN*

decided: November 18, 1940.

WILSON & CO., INC
v.
UNITED STATES*FN*



CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

Hughes, McReynolds, Stone, Roberts, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, Murphy

Author: Murphy

[ 311 U.S. Page 104]

 MR. JUSTICE MURPHY delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioners are corporations engaged in the preparation, packing, and sale of meat products in foreign and domestic commerce. Between November 5, 1933 and

[ 311 U.S. Page 105]

     January 6, 1936 they exported to foreign countries large quantities of hog products with respect to which they paid processing taxes under § 9 (a) and floor stock taxes under § 16 (a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. 48 Stat. 31, 35, 40. Subsequent to exportation petitioners filed claims for refunds under § 17 (a). 48 Stat. 31, 40. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue denied all of the claims and suit in the Court of Claims followed. The United States thereupon moved to dismiss the petitions on the ground that the Court of Claims was without jurisdiction because of certain provisions of Title VII of the Revenue Act of 1936. 49 Stat. 1648, 1747-1755. The Court of Claims dismissed the actions for want of jurisdiction, on the ground, however, that § 601 (e) of Title IV of the Revenue Act of 1936, 49 Stat. 1648, 1740, prevented judicial review of the Commissioner's action. 30 F.Supp. 672. To resolve the conflict with Cudahy Bros. Co. v. La Budde, 92 F.2d 937, and Neuss, Hesslein & Co. v. United States, 30 F.Supp. 595, we granted certiorari. 309 U.S. 651.

The single question presented is whether the Court of Claims was without jurisdiction of petitioners' suits. We hold that it was.

Title VII conditions payment of refunds upon proof that the claimant actually bore the burden of the tax sought to be refunded or that he unconditionally repaid it to his vendee who bore the burden. Since petitioners do not allege satisfaction of these conditions it is plain that they do not claim under Title VII. Indeed, they disown any attempt to bring their claims within its provisions.

Title IV provides for refunds to exporters of products upon which processing or floor stock taxes have been paid. It is true that § 17 (a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act provided for these refunds before the Act was held unconstitutional in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1.

[ 311 U.S. Page 106]

     Whether petitioners could still establish refund claims under that section if the act had never been invalidated is a question we need not consider. For whatever the effect of that decision on § 17 (a), Congress expressly made it a part of Title IV by reenacting it in § 601 (a). 49 Stat. 1648, 1739.*fn1 It follows that petitioners' claims, purportedly based on § 17 (a), must be governed by Title IV and the limitations it imposes.

Section 601 (e) of Title IV provides:

"The determination of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with respect to any refund under this section shall be final and no court shall have ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.