Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Greenport Basin & Construction Co. v. United States

Greenport Basin & Constr. Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 512 (1923)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1923-01-02
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • rejecting argument that two revenue statutes should be read in pari materia where “the language of the act is clear,” and there is thus “no room for argument ... drawn from other revenue measures”
  • “As the language of the act is clear, there is no room for the argument of plaintiff drawn from other [statutes].”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Greenport Basin & Construction Co. v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
39 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Appellate Jurisdiction — Review of District Court Judgments A judgment of a federal district court in an action against the United States under the Tucker Act to recover taxes paid under protest is reviewable by the Supreme Court by writ of error. 260 U.S. at 514
  2. Tax Law — Excess Profits Tax — Computation of Base In computing the excess profits tax imposed by the Act of October 3, 1917, the exaction prescribed by § 201 is imposed, in its successive graduated stages, upon the entire net income; the allowances made by § 203 are deducted only from the portion of net income falling within the first stage, even where those allowances are less than 15 percent of the invested capital. 260 U.S. at 514
  3. Tax Law — Statutory Construction Where the language of a revenue act is clear, it is controlling, and there is no room to resort to arguments drawn from other revenue measures to vary its plain meaning. 260 U.S. at 514
GREENPORT CO.v. UNITED STATES,260 U.S. 512(1923)
43 S.Ct. 183
GREENPORT BASIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANYv. UNITED STATES.
ERROR TO AND APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
No. 31.
Argued November 17, 1922.
Decided January 2, 1923.
1. A judgment of the District Court in an action against the United States under Jud. Code, § 24, par. 20, to recover taxes paid under protest, is reviewable here by writ of error. P. 514. 2. In computing the excess profits tax imposed by the Act of October 3, 1917, c. 63,40 Stat. 300, the exaction prescribed by § 201 is to be imposed, in its successive stages, upon the entire net income, except that, from the part of the net income prescribed for the first stage, the allowances made by § 203 are to be deducted. Soheld, where the allowances were less than 15 per cent. of the invested capital. P. 514. 269 F. 58, affirmed.
ERROR to and appeal from a judgment of the District Court
sustaining a demurrer and dismissing the complaint in an action
against the United States to recover taxes.
Page 513
Mr. M. Hampton Todd, with whomMr. Percy L. Houselwas on the briefs, for plaintiff in error and appellant.Mr. Assistant Attorney General Ottinger, with whomMr.Solicitor General BeckandMr. Charles H. Weston, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, were on the brief, for the United States.
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Greenport Company had, in 1917, an invested capital of $215,615.55. Its net income was $76,361.20 in the taxable year ending October 31, 1917. Its prewar annual net income, calculated on a 7 per cent. basis, was $15,093.08; and the fixed statutory deduction $3,000. The company was thus subject (for five-sixth of the year) to the excess profits tax imposed by the Revenue Act of October 3, 1917, c. 63, §§ 201, 203,40 Stat. 300, 303, 304.1The Government, following Treasury Regulation No. 41, Articles 16, 17, and form 1103, assessed the tax at $16,837.76. The company insisted that the correct amount was $12,417.36; paid the tax as assessed, under protest; and brought this suit for the difference, $4,420.40, in thePage 514federal court for the Eastern District of New York, under the Tucker Act. (Judicial Code, § 24, par. 20.) That court sustained a demurrer to the petition and entered judgment for defendant. 269 F. 58. The case is brought here by both writ of error and appeal. It is properly here on writ of error,Chasev.UnitedStates,155 U.S. 489;J. Homer Fritch, Inc. v.UnitedStates,248 U.S. 458. The sole question presented for decision is whether the method of calculating the taxes adopted by the Treasury is in harmony with the provisions of the Revenue Act.

The rate of exaction imposed by the excess profits tax grows, in stages, with the increase in the percentage earned on the capital. In the first stage — net income up to 15 per cent. on capital — the rate of exaction is four-twentieth. In the second-stage — net income from 15 to 20 per cent. — the rate is five-twentieth. In the third stage — net income from 20 to 25 per cent. — the rate is seven-twentieth. In the fourth stage — net income from 25 to 33 per cent. — the rate is nine-twentieth. In the last stage — net income over 33 per cent. — the rate is twelve-twentieth. What the net income is to which the respective rates of exaction apply is the question for decision. The company contends, in effect, that net incomePage 515as used concerning each stage, means not the whole net income — but the balance remaining after deducting from the net income the allowance for prewar profits and the fixed deduction. Under this contention the base to which the exactions should be applied would be, not $76,361.20, but that sum less $18,093.08, or $58,268.12. The Government insists that the exaction should be applied to the whole net income, except that from the net income prescribed for the first stage the allowances specifically provided for are to be deducted.2The differences in detail resulting from the two methods of calculation are shown in the margin.3Page 516

The method of calculation adopted by the Treasury follows the clear language of the act; and its correctness is confirmed by the statement, and the illustrative tables, presented by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in submitting the Conference Report on the bill. 55 Cong. Rec., 65th Cong., 1st sess., Part 7, pp. 7580-7593. As the language of the act is clear, there is no room for the argument of plaintiff drawn from other revenue measures. Nor is there anything inLa Belle IronWorksv.United States,256 U.S. 377,383-388, which lends support to plaintiff's contention.Affirmed.
  1. Page 513 Section 201: "That in addition to the taxes under existing law and under this act there shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid for each taxable year upon the income of every corporation, partnership, or individual, a tax . . . equal to the following percentages of the net income:

    "Twenty per centum of the amount of the net income in excess of the deduction (determined as hereinafter provided) and not in excess of fifteen per centum of the invested capital for the taxable year;

    "Twenty-five per centum of the amount of the net income in excess of fifteen per centum and not in excess of twenty per centum of such capital;

    "Thirty-five per centum of the amount of the net income in excess of twenty per centum and not in excess of twenty-five per centum of such capital; Page 514 "Forty-five per centum of the amount of the net income in excess of twenty-five per centum and not in excess of thirty-three per centum of such capital; and

    "Sixty per centum of the amount of the net-income in excess of thirty-three per centum of such capital."

    Section 203: "That for the purposes of this title the deduction shall be as follows, except as otherwise in this title provided —

    "(a) In the case of a domestic corporation, the sum of (1) an amount equal to the same percentage of the invested capital for the taxable year which the average amount of the annual net income of the trade or business during the prewar period was of the invested capital for the prewar period (but not less than seven or more than nine per centum of the invested capital for the taxable year), and (2) $3,000." ↩
  2. Page 515 Treasury Regulation No. 41, Article 17, provided that if the deduction exceeded 15% of the invested capital the amount in excess should be applied to the next succeeding tax bracket and so on until the deduction should be absorbed. Compare § 301(d) Act of February 24, 1919, c. 18,40 Stat. 1057, 1089. ↩
  3. Page 515 Methods of Computation.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. GOVERNMENT'S METHOD. | II. PLAINTIFF'S METHOD. | First, apportion the net income into | First, apply the deduction: the tax brackets: | | $76,361.20 minus $18,093.08 leaves Percentages of | $58,268.12 as taxable income. invested capital Amount | (1) 0 to 15% ............. $32,342.33 | (2) 15% to 20% ........... 10,780.77 | (3) 20% to 25% ........... 10,780.77 | (4) 25% to 33% ........... 17,249.24 | (5) Above 33% ............ 5,208.09 | __________ | Total net income ........ $76,361.20 | | Second, apportion the taxable income Second, apply the deduction to | into the tax brackets: the first tax bracket: | | Percentages of (1) $32,342,33 minus $18,093.08 | invested capital Amount leaves $14,249.25. | (1) 0 to 15% ............ $32,342.33 | (2) 15% to 20% .......... 10,780.77 | (3) 20% to 25% .......... 10,780.77 | (4) 25% to 33% .......... 4,364.25 | (5) Above 33% ........... none | __________ | Total taxable income .. $58,268.12 | Third, compute the tax. | Third, compute the tax: | (1) $14,249.25 at 20% ..... $2,849.85 | (1) $32,342.33 at 20% .... $6,468.47 (2) $10,780.77 at 25% ..... 2,695.19 | (2) $10,780.77 at 25% .... 2,695.19 (3) $10,780.77 at 35% ..... 3,773.27 | (3) $10,780.77 at 35% .... 3,773.27 (4) $17,249.24 at 45% ..... 7,762.15 | (4) $4,364.25 at 45% .... 1,963.91 (5) $5,208.09 at 60% ..... 3,124.85 | (5) none at 60% .... none __________ __________ | __________ __________ $58,268.12 Total tax $20,205.31 | $58,268.12 Total tax $14,900.84 Pro rate (5/6) ...... $16,837.76 | Pro rate (5/6) ..... $12,417.36 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ↩