Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
CLAY PRODUCTS, Inc., v. UNITED STATES, 1931 — 52 F.2d 1033 · caselaw · US
Corporations
CLAY PRODUCTS, Inc., v. UNITED STATES
52 F.2d 1033·United States Court of Claims·1931
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
CLAY PRODUCTS, Inc., v. UNITED STATES.
No. K-444.
Court of Claims.
Oct. 20, 1931.
Frank L. Hatch, of Washington,'D. Ci, for plaintiff.
George H. Foster, of Washington, D. C., and Charles B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Before BOOTH, Chief Justice, and GREEN, LITTLETON, WILLIAMS, and WHALEY, Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff bases its right to recover the tax levied and collected at the rate of 2 cents per share upon the issuance of its no par value common stock upon the ground that the tax is confiscatory, in that it is levied without regard to the actual value of the stock upon the issuance of which the tax is collected.
The failure of Congress to measure the tax by the aetual value of the shares of stock issued affords no basis for the court to declare the tax unconstitutional. The fact that a particular tax bears heavily upon a corporation, or a class of corporations, is not, of itself, a sufficient reason for a tax to be declared unconstitutional. Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533,19 L. Ed. 482; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 166, 31 S. Ct. 342, 55 L. Ed. 389, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312. The petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.