PIERCE OIL CORPORATION
v.
HOPKINS, COUNTY CLERK OF SEBASTIAN COUNTY, ARKANSAS, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Pierce Oil Corporation challenged an Arkansas statute imposing a one-cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline sold for use in motor vehicles, arguing the tax violated the Due Process Clause because sellers bore the collection burden without adequate means of reimbursement, and that the statute was unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court affirmed the statute's validity, holding that a state has constitutional power to regulate and tax the gasoline business, and that imposing incidental collection burdens on sellers does not violate due process, while any initial uncertainty in the statute had been resolved by state court interpretation.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Brandéis delivered the opinion of the Court.
A statute of Arkansas provides that one who sells gasoline tO' be used by the purchaser in motor vehicles on highways of the State “ shall collect from such purchaser, in addition to the usual charge therefor, the sum of one cent (1‡) per gallon for each gallon so sold;” that the dealer shall register with the county clerk in every county in which he does business; shall file each month a report of the sales made within the county during the preceding-month; shall personally pay over each month the amount of the taxes accrued thereon; and that failure to file the report or to pay such amount is a misdemeanor which subjects the dealer to a fine. Act No. 606, March 29, 1921, Acts of Arkansas, 1921, p.
685. To enjoin the enforcement of the law the Pierce Oil Corporation brought, in the federal court for Western Arkansas, this suit against taxing officials.
The trial court dismissed the bill, without opinion. Its decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 282 Fed 253. The case is here under § 241 of the Judicial Code. Whether the statute is valid is the sole question for decision. The claims are that the statute violates the due process clause of the Federal Constitution; and that it is void for uncertainty.1 The claim that the act violates the due process clause rests upon the argument that the tax levied is a privilege tax for the use of the highways by the purchasers; that the seller is required to pay the tax laid on the purchasers; that; unlike those cases where a bank is required to pay taxes assessed against stockholders or depositors, Citizens National Bank v. Kentucky, 217 U. S. 443; Clement National Bank v. Vermont, 231 U. S. 120, the seller is not afforded the means of reimbursing himself; and that, moreover, the mere process of collecting the tax from the purchaser, and making monthly reports and payments, subjects the seller to an appreciable expense. A short answer to this argument is that the seller is directed to collect the tax from the purchaser when he makes the sale; and that a State which has, under its constitution, power to regulate the business of selling gasoline (and doubtless, also, the power to tax the privilege of carrying on that business) is not prevented by the due process clause from imposing the incidental burden.
The claim that the law is void for uncertainty is not urged as a violation of the due process clause. Compare International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216; Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273. The argument, that there inheres in the statute such uncertainty as to render it a nullity, is answered by the fact that, since the judgment was entered in the trial court, all uncertainty has been removed by the decision of the highest court of the State in Standard Oil Co. v. Brodie, 153 Ark. 114. There the act was construed as requiring sellers to collect and pay the tax only on such gasoline as they have reason to believe purchasers from them will use in motors on the highways.
Affirmed.
In the District Court the plaintiff challenged the validity of the law also under the state constitution. But after the appeal was taken, the statute was upheld by the highest court of the State in Standard Oil v. Brodie, 153 Ark. 114. So that question is not before us. In this Court, it was argued that the statute violates the equal protection clause. As the contention was not made below, it is not considered. That the remedy at law was not adequate is conceded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Gaulden v. Kirk, 47 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1950)…ow from Notgrass Drug Co. v. State ex rel. Rice, [175 Miss. 358, 165 So. 884,] and that such a requirement does not violate due process of law has been expressly decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in Pierce Oil Corporation v. Hopkins, 264 U.S. 137, 44 S.Ct. 251, 68 L.Ed. 593, and Monamotor Oil Co. v. Johnson, 292 U.S. 86, 54 S.Ct. 575, 78 L.Ed. 1141. See, also, Heriot v. City of Pensacola, 108 Fla. 480, 146 So. 654; Rainer National Park Co. v. Martin, D.C., 18 F. Supp. 481; Johnson v. Diefend…
-
Heriot v. The City of Pensacola, 108 Fla. 480 (Fla. 1933)…e fact'that the Ordinance provides that the consumer shall pay the tax where not absorbed by the dealer and provides that the dealer shall make all collections is valid. Texas Co. v. State, 254 Pac. 1063; 53 A. L. R. 258. Pierce Oil Co. v. Hopkins, 264 U. S. 137; 68 L. E. 593; Standard Oil Co. v. Brodie, 239 S. W. 753. In actual practice, the consumer is generally required to pay the tax when not specifically provided otherwise. The most common form of an excise tax of this kind is the gasoline tax; genera…
-
Lee v. Bond-Howell Lumber Co., 123 Fla. 202 (Fla. 1936)…se a tax law must be no less definite and certain in what it requires a citizen to do in order to avoid the consequences of its violation than a criminal statute. Thus, in the case of Pierce Oil Corp. v. Hopkins 264, U. S. 137, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 251, 68 L. Ed. 593, decided in 1924, the rule was applied by the Supreme Court of the United States to an Arkansas tax statute, and the statute was therein upheld because the uncertainty which originally existed in it had been removed by a decision of the highest Cour…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Int'l Harvester Co. of Am. v. Commonwealth of Ky., 234 U.S. 216 (U.S. 1914)
- FOX v. State of Wash., 236 U.S. 273 (U.S. 1915)
- Clement Nat'l Bank v. State of Vt., 231 U.S. 120 (U.S. 1913)
- Citizens Nat'l Bank v. Commonwealth of Ky. for the Use & Benefit of Boyle Cnty., 217 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1910)