Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GOLDSTEIN v. SCHOOL DIST. PITTSBURGH ET AL. GOLDSTEIN V. CITY PITTSBURGH ET AL. (03/18/52)

March 18, 1952

GOLDSTEIN
v.
SCHOOL DIST. OF PITTSBURGH ET AL. GOLDSTEIN V. CITY OF PITTSBURGH ET AL.



COUNSEL

Machinery Co., and Fisher Scientific Co., amici curiae.

Mortimer B. Lesher, Sol., Oscar G. Peterson, Niles Anderson, Asst. Sols., Anne X. Alpern, City Sol., J. Frank McKenna, Jr., Asst. City Sol., Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross, Arnold and Gunther, JJ.

Author: Reno

[ 170 Pa. Super. Page 453]

RENO. Judge.

H. W. Goldstein, trading as Anchor Distributing Company, appealed from deficiency mercantile tax assessments including interest and penalties made against him by the School District of Pittsburgh and the City of Pittsburgh. The two appeals were consolidated and the facts agreed upon by stipulation. The court below dismissed both appeals and its orders will be affirmed.

Appellant had been the majority shareholder of the Anchor Distributing Company. The corporation was dissolved on April 30, 1949, and appellant acquired its assets and continued operations in his individual capacity. As a wholesale dealer in electrical appliances, the corporation and appellant were subject to provisions of the Mercantile Tax Resolution adopted and the Regulations promulgated by the School District pursuant to the Act of June 20, 1947, P.L. 745, 24 P.S. § 582.1 et seq. and Ordinance No. 488 enacted by the City of Pittsburgh under the Act of June 25, 1947, P.L. 1145, 53 P.S. § 2015.1 et seq.

The School District Act and City Ordinance both impose a tax on annual gross business transacted, the former at the rate of one-half mill and the latter one mill on the dollar. The provisions of each are similar. They are self-assessing taxes requiring the taxable to compute his own tax and file a return with the treasurer on the same form.

The corporation filed a tax return in March, 1949, predicated upon the volume of business done the preceding

[ 170 Pa. Super. Page 454]

    calendar year.*fn1 Upon dissolution of the corporation appellant failed to file an individual return required for a new business nor did he apply for a refund. In March, 1950, he paid school and city taxes based upon the taxable business done by him as an individual, and the corporation during the prior calendar year.*fn2 He concedes the change to an individual proprietorship constituted a new business and a new mercantile tax return should have been filed in his individual name within forty days after commencing such business,*fn3 viz. on or before June 9, 1949. Furthermore, the tax due on March 15, 1950, admittedly should have been based upon the gross taxable business done in May, 1949 (the first month of business transacted by him individually) multiplied by the number of months he engaged in business in such license year.*fn4

On August 30, 1950, deficiency assessments were made against appellant for the years 1949 and 1950 for $1,210.75 and $2,421.51 (exclusive of penalties and interest) due the school and city authorities respectively. The amounts of the deficiencies are not questioned. However, appellant contends (1) any penalties and interest run only from August, 1950, when he was notified of the deficiency assessment; (2) the amount of the tax refund assigned him by the corporation should be set off against the tax due; (3) any penalty ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.