GREENPORT BASIN & CONSTRUCTION CO. v. U S(1923)
[260 U.S. 512, 513] Messrs. M. Hampton Todd, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Percy L. Housel, of Riverhead, L. I., N. Y., for appellant.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Ottinger, 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 pre-war 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-sixths 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, being Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, 6336 3/8 b, 6336 3/8 d).1 The 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 the [260 U.S. 512, 514] federal court for the Eastern District of New York, under the Tucker Act ( Judicial Code, 24, par. 20 [Comp. St. 991]). That court sustained a demurrer to the petition and entered judgment for defendant. 269 Fed. 58. The case is brought here by both writ of error and appeal. It is properly here on writ of error, Chase v. United States, 155 U.S. 489 , 15 Sup. Ct. 174; J. Homer Fritch, Inc., v. United States, 248 U.S. 458 , 39 Sup. Ct. 158. 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-twentieths. In the second stage-net income from 15 to 20 per cent.- the rate is five-twentieths. In the third stage-net income from 20 to 25 per cent.-the rate is seven-twentieths. In the fourth stage-net income from 25 to 33 per cent.-the rate is nine-twentieths. In the last stage-net income over 33 per cent.-the rate is twelve-two methods of calculation are shown in the twentieths. 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 in [260 U.S. 512, 515] come as used concerning each stage, means not the whole net income-but the balance remaining after deducting from the net income the allowance for pre-war profits and the fixed deduction. Under this contention the base to which the exactions should be applied would be, not $76,261.20, 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. 2 The differences in detail resulting from the margin. 3
3 Methods of Computation. 
I. GOVERNMENT'S METHOD. First, apportion the net income into the tax brackets: Percentages of 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, apply the deduction to the first tax bracket: (1) $32,342.33 minus $18,093.08 leaves $14,249.25.
Third, compute the tax: (1) $14,249.25 at 20% $ 2,849.85 (2) $10,780.77 at 25% 2,695.19 (3) $10,780.77 at 35% 3,773.27 (4) $17,249.24 at 45% 7,762.15 (5) $ 5,208.09 at 60% 3,124.85 ___ ___ $58,268.12 Total tax $20,205.31 Pro rate (5/6) $16,837.76
II. PLAINTIFF'S METHOD. First, apply the deduction: 76,361.20 minus $18,093.08 leaves $58,268.12 as taxable income. Second, apportion the taxable income into the tax brackets: Percentages of 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% 4,364.25 (5) Above 33% none ___ Total taxable income $58,268.12
Third, compute the tax: (1) $32,342.33 at 20% $ 6,468.47 (2) $10,780.77 at 25% 2,695.19 (3) $10,780.77 at 35% 3,773.27 (4) $ 4,364.25 at 45% 1,963.91 (5) none at 60% none ___ ___ $58,268.12 Total tax . . . . . . $14,900.84 Pro rate (5/8) $12,417.36 [260 U.S. 512, 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. Cong. Record, 65th Congress, 1st Session, 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 in La Belle Iron Works v. United States, 256 U.S. 377 , 383-388, 41 Sup. Ct. 528, which lends support to plaintiff's contention.
[ Footnote 1 ] 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:
Section 203: 'That for the purposes of this title the deduction shall be as follows, except as otherwise in this title provided:
[ Footnote 2 ] Treasury Regulation No. 41, article 17, provided that if the deduction exceeded 15 per cent. 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 section 301(d), Act of February 24, 1919, e.g., 8, 40 Stat. 1057, 1089 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919 , 6336 7/16 aa).