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.

PHILADELPHIA v. BROOMALL (04/11/57)

April 11, 1957

PHILADELPHIA
v.
BROOMALL, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 138, Oct. T., 1957, from judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, March T., 1954, in case of City of Philadelphia v. Casper J. Broomall. Case remanded for entry of judgment.

COUNSEL

Edwin S. Henry, Jr., with him C. Walter Randall, Jr., and Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul, for appellant.

Levy Anderson, First Deputy City Solicitor, with him Lawrence Prattis, Assistant City Solicitor, and David Berger, City Solicitor, for appellee.

Before Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).

Author: Woodside

[ 183 Pa. Super. Page 297]

OPINION BY WOODSIDE, J.

Philadelphia has an ordinance which imposes "a tax of ten per centum of gross receipts from all transactions in or for the parking of automobiles or motor vehicles on open parking lots in the City of Philadelphia." This ordinance, imposed under the authority of the Act of August 5, 1932, P.L. 45, 53 PS ยง 4613, is constitutional. Philadelphia v. Samuels, 338 Pa. 321, 12 A.2d 79 (1940).

During the years 1951 and 1952 Caspar J. Broomall, the defendant in this case, operated an open

[ 183 Pa. Super. Page 298]

    parking lot in the City of Philadelphia. He filed reports as required by the above ordinance, and timely paid the tax which these reports showed to be due. After the city had audited his books, it claimed he had gross receipts which he had not reported, and brought this action in assumpsit against him to recover the tax on these alleged receipts.

The Municipal Court of Philadelphia, after hearing the matter on complaint, answer, and stipulation of facts, entered judgment for the city in the amount of its claim.

Broomall did not report $580 received by him in 1951 and 1952 from a church and a restaurant for the unrestricted privilege of using his premises for parking on Sundays, when the lot was unattended. The tax on these sums was included in the city's claim, and the defendant now admits liability for this tax. He denies liability on the balance of the city's claim which related to automobiles parked on his lot by the customers of his landlord under the provisions of a lease agreement.

The Pennsylvania Company for Banking and Trusts owned the parking lot and leased it to the defendant by a lease agreement which ...


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.