19

Commissioner Thrower: I think I can go beyond that and say we think it is correct. We think that with Court consideration and action, that there will be that much more acceptance of it, because we recognize that there are some who question the correctness of this from a legal standpoint.

Certainly if we are wrong, legally, we would want to know that.

Q. And an early determination would be of advantage in this?

A. From my standpoint as an administrator, wishing to secure the highest level of acceptability and conformity. I would recognize the desirability of that." pp. 164-65).

CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF

The issues are procedurally ripe for consideration on this appeal. The circumstances are exigent, the problem is one of national scope and conflicting constitutional right. An early authoritative decision is desirable in the administration of the tax laws. The legal and factual questions are novel and substantial and a present determination would establish a judicial standard for the lower federal courts and avoid a multiplicity of piece meal actions.

20

Appellants accordingly move this Court to note juri diction of this appeal and upon such appeal to vacate the order appealed from and issue its mandate to the Di trict Court,

1. To restore the status quo ante litem.

2. To dismiss the complaint as a matter of law and grant the declaratory and injunctive relief prayed in appellants answer.

Respectfully submitted,

91-531 0-82-20

s Geo. S. Leonard

GEO. STEPHEN LEONARD,

LEONARD, CLAMMER & FLUES, 1725 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Attorneys for Appellants.

JOHN B. CONNALLY, JR.,
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, et al.

Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

I. THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO ENTER-
TAIN THE APPEAL

6

A. The Appellants Lack Standing to Appeal the District
Court's Order of June 30, 1971.

6

B. Appellants Have No Direct Appeal to this Court
From the District Court's Order.

8

II. ALTERNATIVELY, THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
COURT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED BECAUSE THERE
WAS NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND THE APPEAL
PRESENTS NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION.

A. The June 30 Order for Declaratory and Injunctive
Relief

11

Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S.
19 (1969)

Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969). . .
Bodkin v. United States, 266 F.2d 55 (2d Cir. 1959)...
Boston Tow Boat Co. v. United States, 321 U.S. 632 (1944).
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Brown v. South Carolina State Bd. of Educ., 296 F.Supp. 199
(D.S.C. 1968), aff'd per curiam, 393 U.S. 222 (1968). .
Brusca v. Missouri, F.Supp. 40 U.S.L.W. 2191 (E.D.
Mo. 9/28/71)

Cannon v. Green, 398 U.S. 956 (1970)

2

10

7

6,7

12

13

15

4,6

(ii)

Page

7

4, 8, 14

4,8,

Chicago v. Chicago Rapid Transit Co., 284 U.S. 577 (1931). . .
Coit v. Green, 400 U.S. 986 (1971)
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

Dymytryshyn v. Esperdy, 285 F.Supp. 507 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)

aff'd per curiam, 393 U.S. 77 (1968) . . .

Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968)

Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Jacobsen, 362 U.S.

13

11

10

10

9

Goldstein v. Cox, 396 U.S. 471 (1970)

9

Green v. Kennedy, 309 F.Supp. 1127 (D.D.C. 1970)

3

Griffin v. Board of Supervisors of Prince Edward County, 339
F.2d 486 (4th Cir. 1964) . .

15

Griffin v. County School Bd. of Prince Edward County, 377
U.S. 218 (1964)

13

Gunn v. University Committee, 399 U.S. 383 (1970)

9

Hamilton Trust Co. v. Cornucopia Mines Co., 223 Fed. 494
(9th Cir. 1915), cert. denied, 239 U.S. 641 (1915). ..
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)

6

9

*Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1917)

15

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270 (1941)

8

Milgram v. Loew's Inc., 192 F.2d 579 (3d Cir. 1951). . .
Mitchell v. DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U.S. 288 (1960)... 14
*Lee v. Macon County Bd. of Educ., 267 F.Supp. 458 (M.D.
Ala. 1967), aff'd per curiam, sub. nom. Wallace v. United
States, 389 U.S. 215 (1967).

7

13

Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Oklahoma Packing Co., 292
U.S. 386 (1934)

11

Poindexter v. Louisiana Financial Assistance Comm'n., 296 F. Supp. 686 (E.D.I a. 1968), aff'd per curiam, 393 U.S. 17 (1968)

12, 13

Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)

15

*Cases chiefly relied upon.