Majority — STRONG J.
Syllabus
Under tHe act of July 20th,'1868, imposing taxes on distilled spirits, the-assessor and his assistant, in estimating the true producing capacity of a distillery, are empowered to fix as the true fermenting period such period as they, after examination and calculation, may deem- the true one. They are not bound to take ás such the period which the distiller, in the notice which the sixth section of the act requires him to give, has declared that he would use for fermentation, and which, subsequently, he actually did use.delivered the opinion of the court.
The question is whether, by the act of Congress under consideration, the assessor and his assistant, in estimating the true producing capacity of a distillery, are empowered to fix, as the true fermenting period, any other than that which the distiller in his notice to the assessor, required by the sixth- section, has declared he-would use for fermentation, and which he actually did use.
That the producing capacity of a distillery is conclusively determined by the survey and estimate made under the tenth section of the act (that survey, however, being subject to revision by the Commissioner of Internal.Revenue), was ruled in Collector v. Beggs.[2] In that case we said “ the survey and estimate- of producing capacity made under the tenth section were conclusive while they remained, though subject to revision under the direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. And the extent of liability to taxation was, by the act of Congress, directed to be measured, not by the actual product of spirits, but by what should have been the product of the materials used.according to the estimate made under the tenth section.” And this is very plainly the intention of the law, for by that section, the only one which expressly provides for the ascertainment, of the producing capacitj-, it was made the duty of the assessor, with the aid of some competent and skilful person to be designated by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to make survey of. each distillery registered, or intended to be . registered, for the production of spirits in his district, not only to estimate, but to determine its producing capacity. Of this estimate and determination the assessor and his assistant .are required to make a written report in triplicate, signed by them, one original of which is to be furnished to the distiller, one retained by the assessor, and the third is to be
But while this is not denied by the plaintiffs in error as a general proposition, it is insisted that in estimating and determining the producing capacity of the distillery, the assessor'must be controlled by the notice which the distiller .is required to give'him by the sixth section of the act, and must base his calculations.upon the period of fermentation fixed-in that notice. It is said he has no power to adopt any other period of fermentation, even- though ordered to do so by the commissioner, and, if he does, that his estimate and determination are not conclusive.. In this objection we cannot concur. .It is founded, we think, upon a misapprehension of the statute. The sixth section requires every person engaged in, or intending to be engaged in, the business of,a .distiller, or rectifier, to give notice in writing to the assessor of the district within which he proposes to carry on the business, stating therein his name, his associates, if any, and his proposed place of business. If he be a distiller, he is. required to state in his notice the kind of stills and the cubic contents thereof, the number and kind of boilers, the number of mash-tubs and fermentiug-tubs, and the cubic contents of each tub; the number of receiving cisterns and the cubic contents of each cistern, together with a particular description of the lot or tract .of land on which the distillery is situated, with the size and .description of the buildings thereon, and of what material constructed. The distiller is also required to -state in his notice the number of hours in which he will ferment each tub of mash or beer, and the estimated quantity "of distilled spirits which the apparatus is capable of distilling every twenty-four hours.-
But without pursuing the subject farther, we have said sufficient to show that in our opinion the notice given by the distiller of the time he will ferment each tub of mash or beer does not control the survey. The assessor must deter
* United States v. Singer, 15 Wallace, 111.
Nor is there any such hardship as is suggested. We have seen that a report of the surveyor’s determination of producing capacity is by the law- required to be placed in the hands of the distiller before he commences business. If dissatisfied with it, he may apply to the commissioner for another survey. He is thus informed of the extent of his liability to taxation. He has, therefore, little reason to complain,when he commences distilling, and does not'produce at least eighty pericent. of what his distillery can produce, as determined by the survey, if he is taxed according to a standard which is not false, and of which he had thus early notice.
T Judgment affirmed.
Footnotes
- * 17 Wallace, 182.