Legal Opinion
Smith v. McDonald
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided August 3, 1954No. 11250_1PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KALODNER, Circuit Judge.
Is an electric sign designed to be attached to the top of a taxicab to advertise its wares an automobile “accessory” within -the meaning of Section 3403(c) of the Internal Revenue Code-which imposes a five per cent tax on auto-accessories? 1
That is the issue — of first impression — presented by the instant appeal.
The facts may be summarized as follows:
The plaintiff, Howard H. Smith, trading as Nite-Lite Sign Company, manufactures but one product — an electric sign designed to be attached by suction •cups to the tops of taxicabs. The sign •consists of a lucite tube…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Universal Battery Co. v. United States and Four Other CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Universal Battery Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- United States v. BrodsonDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1955
3Cited by5 opinions
- Budge Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1960
- King Trailer Company v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1964
- Hirasuna v. McKenneyDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1955
- Van Norman Industries, Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1966
- Benmatt Organization, Inc. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1955