ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Fuller, Harlan, Brewer, Brown, White, Peckham, McKenna, Holmes, Day
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
The rule is firmly established that taxes voluntarily paid cannot be recovered back, and payments with knowledge and without compulsion are voluntary. At the same time, when taxes are paid under protest that they are being illegally exacted, or with notice that the payer contends that they are illegal and intends to institute suit to compel their repayment, a recovery in such a suit may, on occasion, be had, although generally speaking, even a protest or notice will not avail if the payment be made voluntarily, with full knowledge of all the circumstances, and without any coercion by the actual or threatened exercise of power possessed, or supposed to be possessed, by the party exacting or receiving the payment, over the person or property of the party making the payment, from which the latter has no other means of immediate
relief than such payment. Little v. Bowers, 134 U.S. 547, 554; Railroad Company v. Commissioners, 98 U.S. 541, 544; Radich v. Hutchins, 95 U.S. 210, citing Brumagim v. Tillinghast, 18 California, 265, a case in respect of stamps purchased, in which the subject is discussed by Mr. Justice Field, then Chief Justice of California.
In Railroad Company v. Commissioners, Mr. Chief Justice Waite, speaking for the court, said:
"There are, no doubt, cases to be found in which the language of the court, if separated from the facts of the particular case under consideration, would seem to imply that a protest alone was sufficient to show that the payment was not voluntary; but on examination it will be found that the protest was used to give effect to the other attending circumstances. Thus, in Elliott v. Swartwout, 10 Pet. 137, and Bond v. Hoyt, 13 Pet. 266, which were customs cases, the payments were made to release goods held for duties on imports; and the protest became necessary, in order to show that the legality of the demand was not admitted when the payment was made. The recovery rested upon the fact that the payment was made to release property from detention, and the protest saved the rights which grew out of that fact. In Philadelphia v. Collector, 5 Wall. 730, and Collector v. Hubbard, 12 Wall. 13, which were internal-revenue tax cases, the actions were sustained 'upon the ground that the several provisions in the internal revenue acts referred to warranted the conclusion as a necessary implication that Congress intended to give the tax-payer such remedy.' It is so expressly stated in the last case, p. 14. As the case of Erskine v. Van Arsdale, 15 Wall. 75, followed these, and was of the same general character, it is to be presumed that it was put upon the same ground. In such cases the protest plays the same part it does in customs cases, and gives notice that the payment is not to be considered as admitting the right to make the demand."
The stamps in question were purchased from the collector of internal revenue for the Second District of New York, for the
purpose of affixing them to a deed of conveyance to the Building Company, but the collector was not informed at the time of the purchase of the particular purpose, and no intimation was given him, written or oral, that petitioner claimed that the law requiring such stamps was unconstitutional and that he was making the purchase under duress. The petition did allege that the Building Company was unwilling to accept an unstamped conveyance and that the stamps were thereupon affixed in order to complete the transaction and obtain the consideration, but if that constituted duress as between Chesebrough and his building company it was a matter with which the collector had nothing to do. On the face of the petition the purchase was purely voluntary and made under mutual mistake of law if the law were unconstitutional. But it is said that protest or notice would have made this payment involuntary, and that because something over nineteen months after the payment petitioner made "a written application "to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the amount he had paid for the stamps, the ordinary rule did not apply, inasmuch as such an application was "the statutory equivalent of a common law protest or notice of suit."
The reference is to section 3220 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, on appeal to him, may remit, refund and pay back all taxes erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or that appear to have been unjustly assessed or excessive in amount, or in any manner wrongfully collected; and also "repay to any collector or deputy collector the full amount of such sums of money as may be recovered against him in any court, for any internal taxes collected by him, with the costs and expenses of suit;" while sections 3226, 3227, and 3228 provide that no suit shall be maintained for the recovery of internal taxes alleged to have been ...