Braddock Borough v. Bartoletta

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Braddock Borough v. Bartoletta, 409 Pa. 281 (Pa. 1962)
186 A.2d 243
Pee, Bell, Mtjsmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien

Braddock Borough v. Bartoletta

Dissenting Opinion

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Cohen:

While I agree with the majority that no tax was incurred by the transactions in question, I am forced to dissent because of the procedure used by the taxpayer. A taxpayer who desires to challenge a deed transfer tax must either pay the tax and sue for refund — the payment of the tax permitting him to record his deed— or refuse to pay and await suit. He cannot, without putting the sum demanded in the public treasury, both gain the advantages of payment and also avoid the possibility of interest and penalty payments. I would, therefore, vacate the judgment entered by the court below.

Opinion of the Court

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

Judgments affirmed on opinion of Judge Walter P. Smart, 28 Pa. D. & C. 2d 529.

Reference

Full Case Name
Braddock Borough, Appellant, v. Bartoletta
Cited By
8 cases
Status
Published