From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson

U.S.
Jun 1, 1942
316 U.S. 481 (1942)

Summary

In Standard Oil, the Court reviewed a California statute that imposed a license tax on the sale of motor vehicle fuel. 316 U.S. at 482, 62 S.Ct. 1168. The statute exempted "any motor vehicle fuel sold to the government of the United States or any department thereof for official use of said government."

Summary of this case from Slattery v. U.S.

Opinion

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 1125.

Argued May 5, 1942. Decided June 1, 1942.

1. Where the validity of a state statute, as construed, was drawn in question in the state court on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, an appeal lies under Jud. Code § 237(a) from a judgment of the state court sustaining the statute. P. 482. 2. In upholding a state tax on sales of motor fuel, as applied to sales to United States Army Post Exchanges, under a state statute containing an express exception of fuel sold to the Government of the United States or any department thereof, the state court construed the exception as inapplicable because, as it concluded upon a consideration of the relation of such Exchanges to the United States, they were not instrumentalities or agencies of the United States. Held, a decision of a federal question by which this Court is not bound upon appeal. P. 483. 3. Army Post Exchanges are established and operated under regulations of the Secretary of War, authorized by Acts of Congress, and having the force of law. P. 483. 4. Army Post Exchanges are arms of the Federal Government — integral parts of the War Department partaking of its immunity under the Federal Constitution and statutes. P. 485. 5. Since there is no way of knowing whether the California Supreme Court would have construed the Act in question as applicable to Post Exchanges if it had correctly understood their federal status, a determination of the constitutionality of such application is not called for by the present record; and the case is therefore remanded to that court for further proceedings. P. 485. 19 Cal.2d 104, 119 P.2d 329, reversed.

APPEAL from the affirmance of a judgment against the oil company in an action to recover a tax payment.

Mr. Francis R. Kirkham, with whom Messrs. Felix T. Smith and Sigvald Nielson were on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Adrian A. Kragen, Deputy Attorney General of California, with whom Messrs. Earl Warren, Attorney General, and H.H. Linney, Assistant Attorney General, were on the brief, for appellee.

Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Clark, Judge Advocate General Myron C. Cramer, and Messrs. Sewall Key, Arnold Raum, Alvin J. Rockwell, and Fred W. Llewellyn filed a brief on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, urging dismissal of the appeal.


The California Motor Vehicle Fuel License Tax Act imposes a license tax, measured by gallonage, on the privilege of distributing any motor vehicle fuel. Section 10 states that the Act is inapplicable "to any motor vehicle fuel sold to the government of the United States or any department thereof for official use of said government." The appellant, a "distributor" within the meaning of the Act, sold gasoline to the United States Army Post Exchanges in California. The State levied a tax, and the appellant paid it under protest. The appellant then filed this suit in the Superior Court of Sacramento County seeking to recover the payment on two grounds: (1) that sales to the Exchanges were exempt from tax under § 10; (2) that, if construed and applied to require payment of the tax on such sales, the Act would impose a burden upon instrumentalities or agencies of the United States contrary to the Federal Constitution. Holding against the appellant on both grounds, the trial court rendered judgment for the State. The Supreme Court of California affirmed. 19 Cal.2d 104, 119 P.2d 329. Since validity of the state statute as construed was drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, we think the case is properly here on appeal under § 237(a) of the Judicial Code.

Cal. Stats. 1923, pp. 572, 573, 574; 1927, p. 1309; 1933, pp. 1636, 1637; 1937, p. 2219.

Section 7 of the Act provides: "For the purposes of this act all motor vehicle fuel sold, donated, consigned for sale, bartered or used shall be deemed to be distributed. . . ."

Since § 10 of the California Act made the tax inapplicable "to any motor vehicle fuel sold to the government of the United States or any department thereof," it was necessary for the Supreme Court of California to determine whether the language of this exemption included sales to post exchanges. If the court's construction of § 10 of the Act had been based purely on local law, this construction would have been conclusive, and we should have to determine whether the statute so construed and applied is repugnant to the Federal Constitution. But in deciding that post exchanges were not "the government of the United States or any department thereof," the court did not rely upon the law of California. On the contrary, it relied upon its determination concerning the relationship between post exchanges and the Government of the United States, a relationship which is controlled by federal law. For post exchanges operate under regulations of the Secretary of War pursuant to federal authority. These regulations and the practices under them establish the relationship between the post exchange and the United States Government, and together with the relevant statutory and constitutional provisions from which they derive, afford the data upon which the legal status of the post exchange may be determined. It was upon a determination of a federal question, therefore, that the Supreme Court of California rested its conclusion that, by § 10, sales to post exchanges were not exempted from the tax. Since this determination of a federal question was by a state court, we are not bound by it. We proceed to consider whether it is correct.

On July 25, 1895, the Secretary of War, under authority of Congressional enactments promulgated regulations providing for the establishment of post exchanges. These regulations have since been amended from time to time and the exchange has become a regular feature of Army posts. That the establishment and control of post exchanges have been in accordance with regulations rather than specific statutory directions does not alter their status, for authorized War Department regulations have the force of law.

16 Stat. 315, 319; 18 Stat. 337.

G.O. 46, Hdqrs. of the Army.

United States v. Eliason, 16 Pet. 291, 302; Gratiot v. United States, 4 How. 80, 117-118.

Congressional recognition that the activities of post exchanges are governmental has been frequent. Since 1903, Congress has repeatedly made substantial appropriations to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War for construction, equipment, and maintenance of suitable buildings for post exchanges. In 1933 and 1934, Congress ordered certain moneys derived from disbanded exchanges to be handed over to the Federal Treasury. And in 1936, Congress gave consent to state taxation of gasoline sold by or through post exchanges, when the gasoline was not for the exclusive use of the United States.

32 Stat. 927, 938.

47 Stat. 1571, 1573; 48 Stat. 1224, 1229. See Hearings, House, War Department Appropriation Bill, 1934, 72d Cong., 2d Sess., 648.

49 Stat. 1519, 1521, amended by 54 Stat. 1059, 1060-1061.

The commanding officer of an Army Post, subject to the regulations and the commands of his own superior officers, has complete authority to establish and maintain an exchange. He details a post exchange officer to manage its affairs. This officer and the commanding officers of the various company units make up a council which supervises exchange activities. None of these officers receives any compensation other than his regular salary. The object of the exchanges is to provide convenient and reliable sources where soldiers can obtain their ordinary needs at the lowest possible prices. Soldiers, their families, and civilians employed on military posts here and abroad can buy at exchanges. The Government assumes none of the financial obligations of the exchange. But government officers, under government regulations, handle and are responsible for all funds of the exchange which are obtained from the companies or detachments composing its membership. Profits, if any, do not go to individuals. They are used to improve the soldiers' mess, to provide various types of recreation, and in general to add to the pleasure and comfort of the troops.

From all of this, we conclude that post exchanges as now operated are arms of the Government deemed by it essential for the performance of governmental functions. They are integral parts of the War Department, share in fulfilling the duties entrusted to it, and partake of whatever immunities it may have under the Constitution and federal statutes. In concluding otherwise, the Supreme Court of California was in error.

Whether the California Supreme Court would have construed the Motor Vehicle Fuel License Act as applicable to post exchanges if it had decided the issue of legal status of post exchanges in accordance with this opinion, we have no way of knowing. Hence, a determination here of the constitutionality of such an application of the Act is not called for by the state of the record. Cf. Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U.S. 551, 557. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand the cause to the court below for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed.


Summaries of

Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson

U.S.
Jun 1, 1942
316 U.S. 481 (1942)

In Standard Oil, the Court reviewed a California statute that imposed a license tax on the sale of motor vehicle fuel. 316 U.S. at 482, 62 S.Ct. 1168. The statute exempted "any motor vehicle fuel sold to the government of the United States or any department thereof for official use of said government."

Summary of this case from Slattery v. U.S.

focusing on receipt of funds for operational purposes

Summary of this case from Slattery v. U.S.

In Standard Oil, the Supreme Court ruled that PXs qualified for a federal government exemption from a California motor vehicle fuel tax.

Summary of this case from AINS, Inc. v. United States

In Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson, 316 U.S. 481, 485 (1942), the Supreme Court opined that, with regard to NAFIs, absent special legislation, the "government assumes none of the financial obligations of the [NAFI]."

Summary of this case from El-Sheikh v. U.S.

In Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson, 316 U.S. 481, 483 (1942), Justice Black, a legal craftsman of the first rank, referred to "regulations and practices under them" and "the relevant statutory and constitutional provisions" as "data."

Summary of this case from Tax Analysts v. Internal Revenue Service

In Johnson, the employee suffered an on the job injury. He was later discharged for allegedly violating posted safety rules.

Summary of this case from Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc.

In Standard Oil Company of California v. Johnson, 316 U.S. 481, 62 S.Ct. 1168, 86 L.Ed. 1611, post exchanges were held immune from state taxation on the ground that they "are arms of the Government deemed by it essential for the performance of governmental functions"; the Court further stated that post exchanges are "integral parts of the War Department.

Summary of this case from Harlow v. United States

In Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson, 316 U.S. 481, 62 S.Ct. 1168, 86 L.Ed. 1611 (1942), the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether post exchanges, established under regulations promulgated by the Secretary of War under the authority of Congressional enactments, are arms of the government deemed by it essential for the performance of governmental function.

Summary of this case from Champaign-Urbana News Agcy. v. J.L. Cummins News Co.

In Standard Oil, the Supreme Court struck down a California statute which provided for taxation of gasoline sold to the United States Army Post Exchanges in California.

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. Gaylord

In Standard Oil of California v. Johnson, 1942, 316 U.S. 481, 62 S.Ct. 1168, 1170, 86 L.Ed. 1611, the Supreme Court held that post exchanges as arms of the Government were "integral parts of the War Department, share in fulfilling the duties entrusted to it, and partake of whatever immunities it may have under the constitution and federal statutes".

Summary of this case from United States v. Papworth

In Standard Oil Company of California v. Johnson, 316 U.S. 481, 62 S.Ct. 1168, 86 L.Ed. 1611 (1942), the Supreme Court confronted the question of whether or not United States Army Post Exchanges were governmental instrumentalities. It was held that they were, and it was noted that Post Exchanges were originally established pursuant to War Department regulations rather than statutory directives.

Summary of this case from Armed Forces CO-OP., Etc. v. Dept. of Ins
Case details for

Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA v . JOHNSON, TREASURER OF CALIFORNIA

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jun 1, 1942

Citations

316 U.S. 481 (1942)

Citing Cases

Slattery v. U.S.

The Court of Claims, applying the military provisions, held that claims arising from violation of law or…

Jack's Tours, Inc. v. Kilauea Military Camp

The United States Supreme Court "has repeatedly recognized that NAFIs are `arms of the government' deemed…