Opinion
No. 13579.
May 14, 1948.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota; Matthew M. Joyce, Judge.
Action by the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Company against Arthur D. Reynolds, Collector of Internal Revenue to recover back the amount of employment taxes paid under the Carriers Taxing Act. From a judgment for plaintiff, 68 F. Supp. 499, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Abbott M. Sellers, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen. (Theron Lamar Caudle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miss Helen R. Carloss, Lee A. Jackson and Maurice P. Wolk, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., and Victor E. Anderson, U.S. Atty., and Linus J. Hammond, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of St. Paul, Minn., on the brief), for appellant.
Nelson Trottman, of Chicago, Ill. (Warren Newcome, of St. Paul, Minn., and Nye F. Morehouse and Lowell Hastings, both of Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SANBORN, JOHNSEN and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges.
The Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Company in 1944 was assessed employment taxes under the Carriers Taxing Act, 26 U.S.C.A.Int.Rev. Code, § 1500 et seq., 45 U.S.C.A. § 261 et seq., on the workers who had performed services in 1940 under an employment relationship with the Shipley Company which had contracted to perform such services for the Railway Co. On denial of its claim for refund, the Railway Co. sued in the District Court to recover the taxes so paid and obtained a judgment. See Chicago, St. P., M. O. Ry. Co. v. Reynolds, D.C. Minn., 68 F. Supp. 499. The Collector has appealed.
The Shipley Co. had been in the business of furnishing various contract services to railroads since 1923, and appellee had begun its contract relations with the Shipley Co. during that year. In general, the contracts involved related to the placing of coal in bins or chutes; coaling locomotives; storing ice; icing refrigerator cars; cleaning freight cars; unloading and reloading livestock for feed, water and rest; and handling and servicing heaters in refrigerator cars.
The situation in its material aspects is controlled by our opinion in Reynolds v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 8 Cir., 168 F.2d 934, and we need not additionally discuss it.
Affirmed.