From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Forst

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jan 23, 1978
569 F.2d 811 (4th Cir. 1978)

Opinion

Nos. 77-1395 and 77-1722.

Argued December 12, 1977.

Decided January 23, 1978.

Libero Marinelli, Jr., Atty., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Myron C. Baum, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Gilbert E. Andrews and David English Carmack, Attys., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Paul R. Thompson, Jr., U.S. Atty., Roanoke, Va., and Edwin C. Stone, Radford, Va., counsel for Hercules Inc., on brief), for appellants.

Glenn R. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Taxation, Natural Bridge, Va. (Anthony F. Troy, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

Before FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge, and WIDENER and HALL, Circuit Judges.


The United States and Hercules Incorporated sought a declaratory judgment that Hercules was not liable to the Commonwealth of Virginia under the Virginia Retail Sales and Use Tax, Code of Va. § 58-441.1, et seq., (1950), upon tangible personal property which was purchased and used by Hercules pursuant to its contract with the Department of the Army to operate the Radford Army Ammunition Plant. Upon cross motions for summary judgment counsel for the plaintiffs conceded that Hercules never acted as an agent for the United States in connection with the purchase or use of the subject property, and the Commonwealth conceded that title to the property never vested in Hercules but passed directly from the vendor to the United States.

The district court recognized that the key factor in the case was whether the credit of the United States or the contractor was bound by the purchasing agreements. See Alabama v. King Boozer, 314 U.S. 1, 62 S.Ct. 43, 86 L.Ed. 3 (1941); Kern-Limerick, Inc. v. Scurlock, 347 U.S. 110, 74 S.Ct. 403, 98 L.Ed. 546 (1954). Finding that Hercules exercised substantial control over the procurement of the property and that only its credit was involved in the purchases, the district court concluded that Hercules was the purchaser and that the Virginia sales and use tax was constitutionally applied to the transactions. We agree with the district court and affirm upon its well reasoned opinion. United States and Hercules Incorporated v. Forst, 442 F. Supp. 920 (W.D.Va. 1977).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Forst

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jan 23, 1978
569 F.2d 811 (4th Cir. 1978)
Case details for

United States v. Forst

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND HERCULES INCORPORATED, APPELLANTS, v. W. H…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jan 23, 1978

Citations

569 F.2d 811 (4th Cir. 1978)

Citing Cases

United States v. District of Columbia

In this action, the United States seeks restitution from the District of Columbia for the amount of the sales…

United States v. State of N. M

Although we are skeptical of cosmetic provisions drafted by government functionaries, we must find immunity…