Neither court, nor any of the parties, has questioned the sufficiency of the pleadings to present a case for a declaratory judgment.
Save for that purpose those courts had no occasion to entertain the suit, or pronounce any judgment in it. The district court, as we have indicated, has in substance given a declaratory judgment, which the Circuit Court of Appeals has sustained. Petitioners have challenged the state's right to collect the tax, and have interposed, as a barrier to the collection, the present suit in the federal court for a declaratory judgment.
The state act, as the court below held, exacts of employers payments into the state unemployment insurance fund, in the nature of an excise tax upon the exercise of the right or privilege of employing individuals and measured by a percentage of the wages paid. , § 1607(c)(4), by exempting from its operation officers and crews of vessels, has not 'preempted the field' or otherwise precluded the state from applying its law with respect to the employees in question. 1086, L.R.A.1918C, 451, Ann.Cas.1917E, 900, and cases following it and that the Federal Social Security Act, 26 U.S.C. 1327) that the application of the Act to petitioners would not interfere with any characteristic feature of the general maritime law in its interstate and international aspects so as to fall under the ban of Southern Pac. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, 134 F.2d 213, holding that the statute, in exacting from employers contributions to the state unemployment compensation fund, is a valid exercise of the state taxing power (see Steward Mach.
0 kommentar(er)
