Taylor v. Treat

Citations

• 153 F. 656
• 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5122

Syllabus

<p>1. Internal Revenue — Vermuth—Wine.</p> <p>Vermuth is not “wine” within either the commercial or the popular meaning of that term, and , therefore'is not subject to the stamp tax on “sparkling or other wines,” provided in War Revenue Act June 13, 1898, c. 448, 30 Stat. 463 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1654].</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — Interpretation of commercial and trade terms in tariff laws, see note to Dennison Mfg. Co. v. United States. 18 C. C. A. 545.]</p> <p>2. Same — Acts—Interpretation with Reference to Tariff Acts.</p> <p>Internal revenue acts should be interpreted in harmony with the tariff legislation -vf the country..</p> <p>3. Same — Trade-Names—Foreign Nomenclature — Evidence.</p> <p>Evidence of foreign trade-names is not material to the question of the meaning of terms used in United States revenue acts.</p> <p>4. Same — Judgment fob Illegal Exaction — Interest—Demand.</p> <p>Certain parties became entitled to a judgment against an internal revenue collector for the cost of stamps which he had illegally compelled them to use. Held that, inasmuch as they had purchased the revenue stamps in large quantities and evidently for other purposes than that of paying the unlawful tax, they were entitled to interest'only from the date of their demand.-</p>