McLaughlin

Intercoast Trading Co. v. McLaughlin

Good Law
18 F. Supp. 149·18 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1234·1936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1631
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 23, 1936No. 19461—RCalifornia1,918 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Roche, J.

Plaintiffs sue for a partial refund of a total stamp tax of $27,308.35 paid by the Intercoast Trading Company, a corporation now dissolved, on an original issue of its capital stock. Stock certificates representing the entire issue of 1,800,000 shares without par value were issued from September 10, .1929, to October 22, 1929.

Under Schedule A, subdivision 2, of the Revenue Act of 1926 (section 800 et *150 seq. [ 44 Stat. 99, 101]), as re-enacted by the Revenue Act of 1928 ( 45 Stat. 791 ), a stamp tax of one cent was due on every $20 of “actual value” of each stock certificate at the time of its issuance. The plaintiff contends that the value of the stock was approximately $17.50 a share; the defendant maintains it was about $30 a share as assessed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The question presented is whether that value was greater or less than $20. If the former, it is stipulated the tax of $27,308.35 paid was correct; if the latter, the tax should have been only $16,097.98; the difference is $11,210.37.

The burden is on the plaintiff to show that the tax, as assessed by the collector, was erroneous. United States v. Anderson, 269 U.S. 422, 433 , 46 S.Ct. 131, 132…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.