Summary

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone City of New York v. Feiring — Opinion of the Court

But it is plain that both the vendor and the vendee are made liable for payment of the tax in invitum without regard to those provisions by which the seller may shift the incidence of the tax to the buyer and the tax may be summarily collected by distraint of the property of either the seller or the buyer. A pecuniary burden so laid upon the bankrupt seller for the support of government, and without his consent thus has all the characteristics of a tax entitled to priority of payment in bankruptcy within the meaning of § 64 of the Bankruptcy Act.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone City of New York v. Feiring — Opinion of the Court

It is not any the less a tax laid on the seller because the statute places a like burden in the alternative on the purchaser or because it affords to the seller facilities of which he did not avail himself to pass the tax on to the buyer. While an action in debt may be resorted to for the recovery of a tax it is evident that in this case the bankrupt is liable to the state only because it owes a tax.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature