Facts of the Case
In November, 1934, an information was filed in the District Court for Northern Alabama charging that, on October 8, 1934, at Birmingham, Alabama, the respondent conducted the business of a retail dealer in malt liquor contrary to the laws of the state without having paid the special excise tax of $1,000 imposed by § 701 of the Revenue Act of 1926. [ Footnote 1 ] A demurrer and a motion to quash were overruled, a plea of not guilty was entered, and a jury trial was waived. Pursuant to a stipulation of facts, the court found that, for the fiscal year July 1, 1934, to June 30, 1935, the respondent registered with the Collector of Internal Revenue as a retail liquor dealer and paid the tax of $25.00 imposed upon such dealers by Rev.St. § 3244, as amended; [ Footnote 2 ] on the date named in the information, the respondent had a restaurant in Birmingham, where he conducted the business of a retail dealer in malt liquors containing more than one-half of one percent alcohol, which business was contrary to the laws of the state and of the city, and had not paid the $1,000 tax. Respondent's motion for judgment was denied, that of the United States was granted, and the respondent was sentenced. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment [ Footnote 3 ] on the ground that the section became inoperative upon the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment.
Conclusions
-
(3) The additional exaction is not a tax, but penalty for violation of state law. P. 296 U. S. 294 . (4) The effect of the exaction in question is, under the guise of a taxing act, to usurp the police powers of the States. P. 296 U. S. 296 .
Towards an Administrative Rule of Lenity: Restoring the Constitutional Congress by Reforming Statutory Interpretation
Federalist Society Review, Volume 19
Note from the Editor: In this article, Joel Nolette proposes an “administrative rule of lenity”...