Stanley Forman Reed,
Bartels v. Birmingham — Dissent
“ And to hold the dance hall proprietor liable for the tax is not to contract the coverage contemplated by the statutory scheme.I think the tax collector should be entitled to take such private arrangements at their face. In other situations a taxpayer may not escape the tax consequences of the business arrangements which he makes on the grounds that they are fictional. The Government may 'sustain or disregard the effect of the fiction as best serves the purposes of the tax statute.' Higgins v. ”
