McCAMPBELL & COMPANY, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
The claimant sought an award of $21.38 for a processing tax on denim purchased for the St. Charles School for Boys, which had not been included in the original invoice. The court denied the claim because the tax was not passed on to the consumer and the claimant had an adequate remedy under the Revenue Act of 1936 to seek a refund from the federal government.
Cases cited: U. S. vs. Butler, 287 U. S. 1; Anniston Mfg. Co. vs. Davis (U.S. Supreme Court May 17, 1937)
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- FEDERAL PROCESS TAX-amount of omitted from bill for goods sold State -when State not liable for. Where claimant sold goods to State and omitted to include in bill therefor, amount of processing tax, State is not liable for the payment thereof, especially where seller is afforded remedy for recovery of same, if paid by it, in the United States Court of Claims.
Claimant seeks an award of Twenty-one and 38/100 ($21.38) Dollars, representing that respondent had purchased a quantity of denim for the use of the St. Charles School for Boys, on August 1, 1934. That claimant submitted an invoice which did not include the Processing Tax of Twenty-one and 38/100 ($21.38) Dollars which was then being assessed on [*43] sales, but which was not included in this instance because of the representation that the St. Charles School for Boys was a charitable institution, and that the Federal Government would refund to the processor the tax on the goods purchased.
The Federal authorities ruled that the St. Charles School for Boys was not a charitable institution and denied the refund.
Petitioner's claim was filed June 1, 1936 after the Federal Commissioner had notified them that their claim for credit on tax paid had been rejected.
The tax in question was assessed under the provisions of the Federal Agricultural Adjustment Act.
The Attorney General moves to dismiss the claim on the ground that claimant seeks an award predicated upon liability of the State for a tax for which the State is not liable.
The Agricultural Adjustment Act, under which the tax was levied was held unconstitutional in the case of U. S. vs.
Butler, 287 U. S. 1.
"Where the processor has not passed the tax on to the consumer he may, under Sections 901 to 917 of Title VII of the Revenue Act of 1936, recover the tax from the Federal government, and if the Commissioner refuses a refund under the above sections, the processor may prosecute his claim in the United States Court of Claims."
Anniston Mfg. Co. vs. Davis. (Opinion rendered by U. S. Supreme
Court May 17, 1937.)
In the instant case the tax was not passed on to the consumer and claimant apparently has an adequate remedy in presenting its claim to the Federal Government.
The motion of the Attorney General is therefore allowed and the claim is dismissed.