From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Erie Taxi Co. v. Gnichtel

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Dec 3, 1926
17 F.2d 661 (D.N.J. 1926)

Opinion

December 3, 1926.

Surosky Surosky, of Paterson, N.J., for complainant.

Walter G. Winne, U.S. Atty., of Hackensack, N.J., for defendants.


In Equity. Suit by the Erie Taxi Company against Edward E. Gnichtel, Collector of Internal Revenue, and another, to restrain the collection of taxes. Bill dismissed.


This is a bill to restrain the collection of taxes. Revised Statutes, § 3224 (Comp. St. § 5947) sought to avoid such interference with the machinery of government. See Graham v. Dupont, 262 U.S. 234, 43 S. Ct. 567, 67 L. Ed. 965.

The return, upon which the taxes in question were assessed, was for the year 1919, and must have been made in the year 1920. The collector had, under the statute, five years in which to make the assessment. This he seems to have done. Under Revenue Act 1926, tit. 2, § 278d ( 44 Stat. 59), he had six years after the assessment was made in which to distrain for the taxes. Nothing is indicated which bars the right of the taxpayer to sue for the return of the taxes, if the imposition is improper.

The bill will be dismissed, with costs.


Summaries of

Erie Taxi Co. v. Gnichtel

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Dec 3, 1926
17 F.2d 661 (D.N.J. 1926)
Case details for

Erie Taxi Co. v. Gnichtel

Case Details

Full title:ERIE TAXI CO. v. GNICHTEL, Internal Revenue Collector, et al

Court:United States District Court, D. New Jersey

Date published: Dec 3, 1926

Citations

17 F.2d 661 (D.N.J. 1926)

Citing Cases

Miller v. Nut Margarine Co.

gs Co., 16 F.2d 927, certiorari denied, 274 U.S. 753; Ralston v. Heiner, 24 F.2d 416, certiorari denied, 277…