Tobacco Tax Ca$e$
1870-2009

The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 US 616; 20 L Ed 227 (WD Ark, Dec 1870) (issue of law of Congress vs a treaty)

In Re Henderson's Tobacco, 78 US 652; 20 L Ed 235 (Dec 1870)

Pace v Burgess, 92 US 372; 23 L Ed 657 (ED Va, Oct 1875)

Lilienthal's Tobacco v United States, 97 US 237; 24 L Ed 901 (21 Jan 1878)

Burgess v Salmon, 97 US 381; 24 L Ed 1104 (ED Va, Oct 1878) (deeming the law ex post facto)

Kensett v Stivers, Collector, Int Revenue, et al, 10 F 517 (SD NY, 8 Nov 1880)

Snyder v Marks, 109 US 189; 3 S Ct 157; 27 L Ed 901 (La, 2 Nov 1883)

17 Opinions US Attorney General 646 (25 Jan 1884) (issue of tax classification of tobacco scraps)

Snyder v U.S., 112 US 216; 5 S Ct 118; 28 L Ed 697 (La, 17 Nov 1884) ("forfeiture of the tobacco, machinery, tools and material in a tobacco manufactory, for violations of the internal revenue laws")

Cohn v Spalding, 24 Fed. 19 (CC ND Ill, 26 May 1885) (issue of tax classifcation of tobacco scraps)

Turpin v Burgess, 117 US 504; 6 S Ct 835; 29 L Ed 988 (5 April 1886) (tax case, alleging tax on tobacco manufacture was on exports, banned by the constitution)

In re Blumlein, Rosenwald, Cullmans, and Schubart, 45 F 236 (SD NY, 2 Feb 1891) (leaf tobacco tax case)

In re Blumlein, 49 F 228 (SD NY, 5 Jan 1892) (leaf tobacco tax case)

Field v Clark, 143 US 649; 12 S Ct 495; 36 L Ed 294 (29 Feb 1892) (constitutional challenge, alleging it didn't pass as text was not in congressional journal, and excessive delegation issue)

Sheldon and Castro v U.S., 5 CCA 282; 55 F 818 (CA 7, Ill, 11 Feb 1893) (issue of tax classification of tobacco scraps)

Isaacs v Jonas, 148 US 648; 13 S Ct 677; 37 L Ed 596 (La, 10 April 1893)

U.S. v Isaacs, 148 US 654; 13 S Ct 679; 37 L Ed 598 (La, 10 April 1893)

In re Blumlein, 5 CCA 142; 55 F 383 (CA 2, NY, 18 April 1893). SCB: 49 F 228 (leaf tobacco tax case)

U S v Snyder, 149 US 210; 13 S Ct 846; 37 L Ed 705 (La, 1 May 1893)

Seeberger v Castro, 153 US 32; 14 S Ct 766; 38 L Ed 624 (Ill, 16 April 1894). SCB: 40 F 531

Spalding v Castro, 153 US 38; 14 S Ct 768; 38 L Ed 626 (16 April 1894)

Metz v Hagerty, 51 Ohio St 521; 38 NE 11 (20 June 1894) (early case involving tobacco company challenge to constitutionality of a tax law)

Erhardt v Schroeder, 155 US 124; 15 S Ct 325; 39 L Ed 94 (NY, 12 Nov 1894)

United States v Rosenwald, 67 F 323 (CA 2, 5 March 1895) (leaf tobacco tax case)

Commonwealth v American Tobacco Co, 173 Pa 531; 34 A 223; 38 Weekly Notes of Cases 4 (10 Feb 1896)

Lies v U.S., 38 US App 655; 20 CCA 651 (NY, 1897) aff'd 74 F 546 (CA 2, 1897) aff'd 170 US 628; 18 S Ct 780; 42 L Ed 1170 (23 May 1898)

U.S. v American Tobacco Co, 166 US 468; 17 S Ct 619; 41 L Ed 1081 (12 April 1897) (tax stamps refund case)

U.S. v Rothschild & Bro, 87 F 798 (SD NY, 27 May 1898) (tobacco tax case "imposing a penalty on any one importing an abnormal bale" of tobacco, where the law had "awkward, tortuous and obscure phraseology," evidently intending "to cut loose from earlier legislation and the decisions predicated thereon," so upholding the tax collector, and reversing the lower decision reversing the collector)

US v Schroeder, 33 CCA 376; 93 F 448 (CA 2, NY, 1 March 1899) (tax case cited by Latimore, infra). SCB: 87 F 201 (reversed)

U.S. v Two-hundred Twenty Patented Machines, 99 F 559 (ED Pa, 5 Feb 1900) (business practices case; cigar machines confiscated for taxes; the innocent take the risk if the cigar manufacturer violates the law, and machines are confiscated for taxes)

U.S. v 246 Pounds of Tobacco, 103 F 791 (ND Wash, 14 Aug 1900) (the innocent mortgage holder takes the risk if the cigar manufacturer violates the law, and machines are confiscated for taxes)

Rothschild & Bro v U.S., 179 US 463; 21 S Ct 197; 45 L Ed 277 (NY, 17 Dec 1900). SCB: 87 F 798 (a rare example of the Supreme Court answering a certified question from a lower court, here, answering a Circuit Court of Appeals question as to the tax law's meaning and application in the tobacco tax case on appeal from the lower court in SD NY that had said the law had "awkward, tortuous and obscure phraseology")

Patton v Brady, 184 US 608; 22 S Ct 493; 46 L Ed 713 (ED Va, 17 March 1902) (extra tax due to Spanish-American War)

Cornell v Coyne, 192 US 418; 24 S Ct 383; 48 L Ed 504 (23 Feb 1904) (tax case, citing tobacco precedents and issues back to the Civil War)

Re Schmidt, GA 4124, T.D. 19715 / GA 5,695, TD 25,353 (Port of New York), aff'd sub nom Falk and American Cigar Co v U.S., 145 F 574 (D NY, 22 Dec 1904), rev'd 146 F 484 (CA 2, NY 17 Jan 1906), rev 204 US 143; 27 S Ct 191; 51 L Ed 411 (7 Dec 1907) (leaf tobacco at warehouse loses moisture, the issue was whether the tax should be on the weight (a) at entry to warehouse or (b) on the lesser weight at the time of leaving it)

Cook v Marshall County, 196 US 261; 25 S Ct 233; 49 L Ed 471 (Iowa, 16 Jan 1905). SCB: 119 Iowa 384; 93 NW 372; 104 Am St Rep 283 (preemption issue in tax case, upholding validity of a cigarette-tax law that made a distinction between jobbers and wholesale dealers in cigarettes)

Hodge v Muscatine County, 196 US 276; 25 S Ct 237; 49 L Ed 477 (Iowa, 16 Jan 1905). SCB: 121 Iowa 482; 96 NW 968; 104 Am St Rep 383 (preemption issue in tax case)

Southwestern Oil Co v State of Texas, 217 US 114; 30 S Ct 496; 54 L Ed 688 (2 March 1910) (preemption issue in tax case)

Latimer v U S, 223 US 501; 32 S Ct 242; 56 L Ed 526 (PR, 19 Feb 1912) (case involving tobacco leaves falling on floor, not discarded, but swept up, cleaned and used in cigarettes)

Commonwealth v American Tobacco Co, 162 Ky 716; 172 SW 1085 (11 Feb 1915)

United Cigar Stores v Stewart, Tax Coll, 144 Ga 724; 87 SE 1034 (22 Feb 1916)

Tandy & Fairleigh Tobacco Co v Hopkinsville, 174 Ky 189; 192 SW 46 (23 Feb 1917) (challenging a tax by citing lawmakers' alleged notice-related parliamentary procedure violations)

American Tobacco Co v Bowling Green, 181 Ky 416; 205 SW 570 (27 Sep 1918)

Wright v Hirsch, 155 Ga 229; 116 SE 795 (2 March 1923)

Lloyd v Richardson, 158 Ga 633; 124 SE 37 (23 July 1924)

Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co v Doughton, 270 US 69; 46 S Ct 256; 70 L Ed 475 (1 March 1926) (issue of constitutionality of North Carolina inheritance tax on stock owned by deceased Rhode Island resident, in the New Jersey R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co)

Lionel's Cigar Store v McFarland, 162 La 956; 111 So 341 (3 Jan 1927)

Doscher v Query, 21 F2d 521 (ED South Carolina, 15 Aug 1927)

Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas v Collector of Internal Rev, 275 US 87; 48 S Ct 100; 72 L Ed 177 (21 Nov 1927)

Asotsky v Beach, 319 Mo 810; 5 SW2d 22; 62 ALR 95 (9 April 1928) (tax case)

Exchange Drug Co v State Tax Commission, 218 Alabama 115; 117 So 673 (10 May 1928) app dism 278 US 577; 49 S Ct 176; 73 L Ed 515 (2 Jan 1929)

Burnet, Comm'r of Int Revenue v Commonwealth Improvement Co, 57 F2d 47 (CA 3, 17 March 1932) (issue of tax on transfer of British-American Tobacco Company stock to decedent's estate, reversing SCB: 20 BTA 1189).

Burnet, Comm'r of Int Revenue v Commonwealth Improvement Co, 287 US 415; 53 S Ct 198; 77 L Ed 399 (12 Dec 1932). SCB: 57 F2d 47 (issue of tax on transfer of British-American Tobacco Company stock to decedent's estate; decision reversed court of appeals reversal of lower decision).

British-American Tobacco Co v Helvering, Com'r of Internal Revenue, 293 US 95; 55 S Ct 55; 79 L Ed 218 (5 Nov 1934)

Supervisor of Public Accounts v Montreuil, 157 So 783 (La App, 26 Nov 1934)

Sheppard v Musser, 89 SW2d 222 (Tex Civ App, 22 Nov 1935)

Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co v United States, 299 US 383; 57 S Ct 239; 81 L Ed 294 (4 Jan 1937) (tax case on manufacture vs export, allowed despite Art I 9 clause 5 ban on export taxes)

Supervisor of Public Accounts v Twelve Cases of Smoking Tobacco, 172 So 364 (La App, 8 Feb 1937) (tax case)

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co v Robertson, Com'r of Internal Revenue, 22 F Supp 187 (MD NC, 27 April 1937) (issue of tax on manufacture vs export of tobacco, including stolen tobacco)

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co v Robertson, Com'r of Internal Revenue, 94 F2d 167 (CA 4, NC, 4 Jan 1938) (issue of tax on manufacture vs export of tobacco, applying L & M Tobacco Co v U.S., 299 US 383). SCB: 22 F Supp 187

R J Reynolds Tobacco Co v Robertson, Com'r of Internal Revenue, 304 US 563; 58 S Ct 944; 82 L Ed 1530 (25 April 1938) rehearing denied, 304 US 589; 58 S Ct 1045; 82 L Ed 1549 (23 May 1938). SCB: 22 F Supp 187; 94 F2d 167

Com'r of Internal Revenue v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 97 F2d 302 (6 June 1938). SCB: 35 BTA 949 (tax case)

Helvering, Com'r of Internal Revenue v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 305 US 587; 59 S Ct 101 (17 Oct 1938). SCB: 97 F2d 302; 35 BTA 949

Helvering, Com'r of Internal Revenue v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 306 US 110; 59 S Ct 423; 83 L Ed 536 (30 Jan 1939). SCB: 97 F2d 302; 35 BTA 949

Kentucky Tax Commission v American Tobacco Co, 370 SW2d 590 (Ky App, 19 April 1963)

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co v United States 369 F Supp 1283 (WD Ky, 9 March 1973) affirmed 491 F2d 1258 (CA 6, 28 Feb 1974) (income tax refund case involving storage sheds' change in taxable value)

Moe v Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 425 US 463; 96 S Ct 1634; 48 L Ed 2d 96 (Montana, 27 April 1976). SCB: 392 F Supp 1297 and 1325 (Indian reservation cigarette sales tax case)

Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation v State of Washington, 446 F Supp 1339 (ED Wash, 22 Feb 1978)

Washington v Confederated Tribes, 447 US 134; 100 S Ct 2069; 65 L Ed 2d 10 (10 June 1980). SCB: 446 F Supp 1339

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co v Durham County, 479 US 130; 107 S Ct 499; 93 L Ed 2d 449 (9 Dec 1986) (tax case). SCB: 314 NC 540; 335 SE 2d 21

Cotton Petroleum Corp v New Mexico, 490 US 163; 109 S Ct 1698; 104 L Ed 2d 209 (25 April 1989) (Indian tax case)/ SCB: 106 NM 517, 745 P2d 1170; 106 NM 511, 745 P2d 1159

Philip Morris v Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 716 F Supp 1479 (CIT, 6 July 1989) (issue of import classification, with requirement to refile objections anew each time)

Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v Potawatomi Tribe, 888 F2d 1303 (CA 10, 3 Nov 1989) (states can't tax Indian cigarette sales without Congressional approval)

City Vending of Muskogee v Oklahoma Tax Commission, 898 F2d 122 (CA 10, Oklahoma, 14 March 1990)

McKesson Corp v Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 496 US 18l; 110 S Ct 2238; 110 L Ed 2d 17 (4 June 1990) (tax case, under the commerce clause). SCB: 524 So 2d 1000

Philip Morris v Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 907 F2d 158 (CA Fed, 13 June 1990). SCB: 716 F Supp 1479

City Vending of Muskogee v Oklahoma Tax Commission, 498 US 823; 111 S Ct 75; 112 L Ed 2d 48 (1 Oct 1990). SCB: 898 F2d 122

Milhelm Attea & Bros v Dept of Taxation and Finance of New York, 164 App Div 2d 300, 564 NYS2d 491 (6 Dec 1990) (Indian reservation cigarette tax case; taxing cigarettes sold to Indians on Indian reservation is unconstitutional without Congressional approval per federal Indian Trader laws, leaving no room for state action)

Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v Citizen Band of Potawatomi Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 US 505; 111 S Ct 905; 112 L Ed 2d 1112 (26 Feb 1991). SCB: 888 F2d 1303

US v Benson, 941 F2d 598 (CA 7, ND Illinois, 27 Aug 1991) (cigarette tax case and insurance allegations)

Dept of Taxation & Fin. v Milhelm Attea & Bros, 502 US 1053; 112 S Ct 926; 117 L Ed 2d 99 (21 Jan 1992). SCB: 164 App Div 2d 300, 564 NYS2d 491; 77 NY2d 989, 571 NYS2d 914, 575 NE2d 400; 78 NY2d 858; 575 NYS2d 454; 580 NE2d 1057

US v Benson, 957 F2d 301 (CA 7, ND Illinois, 14 Feb 1992) (cigarette tax case and insurance allegations). SCB: 941 F2d 598

Milhelm Attea & Bros v Dept of Taxation and Finance of New York, 81 NY2d 417; 599 NYS2d 510 ; 615 NE2d 994(10 June 1993). SCB: 164 App Div 2d 300, 564 NYS2d 491; 181 App Div 2d 210, 585 NYS (Indian reservation cigarette tax case)

Dept of Taxation & Fin. v Milhelm Attea & Bros, 512 US 61; 114 S Ct 2028; 129 L Ed 2d 52 (13 June 1994). SCB: 164 App Div 2d 300, 564 NYS2d 491; 181 App Div 2d 210, 585 NYS; 81 NY2d 417, 615 NE2d 994 (Indian reservation cigarette tax case)

Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v Chickasaw Nation, 515 US 450; 115 S Ct 2214; 132 L Ed 2d 400 (14 June 1995) (motor fuel excise tax case)

US v Benson, Case 94-2214, 67 F3d 641 (CA 7, ND Illinois, 6 Oct 1995) (cigarette tax case and insurance allegations). SCB: 941 F2d 598; 957 F2d 301

United States of America v Benson, 67 F3d 641 (CA 7, ND Illinois, 6 Oct 1995) (cigarette tax case and insurance allegations). SCB: 941 F2d 598; 957 F2d 301

US v Benson, 74 F3d 152 (CA 7, ND Illinois, 18 Jan 1996) (cigarette tax case and insurance allegations). SCB: 941 F2d 598; 957 F2d 301; 67 F3d 641

Philip Morris, Inc v CIR, 517 US 1220; 116 S Ct 1849; 134 L Ed 2d 949 (28 May 1996). SCB: 71 F3d 1040

US v US Shoe Corp, 907 F Supp 408 (D CIT, 25 Oct 1995) aff'd 114 F3d 1564 (CA Fed, 3 June 1997) aff'd 523 US 360; 118 S Ct 1290; 140 L Ed 2d 453 (31 March 1998) (tax case saying Pace v Burgess (1875), supra, is still a current good precedent)

Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v Manufacturing Technologies, Inc, Case Num. 96-1037; 523 US 751; 118 S Ct 1700; 140 L Ed 2d 981 (26 May 1998) (Indian rights case, essentially immune to state control, like any foreign country)

Yakama Indian Nation v Washington Dept of Revenue, 528 US 1116; 120 S Ct 935; 145 L Ed 2d 813 (18 Jan 2000). SCB: 873 F Supp 404; 78 F3d 1400; 955 F Supp 1229; 176 F3d 1241 (cigarette tax exemption allegation case)

People v Beydoun, 283 Mich App 314 (Michigan, 14 April 2009)



Email@lpletten

Copyright 1999 Leroy J. Pletten