LIQUORS. (20487.) Increased tax on fermented liquors. Where assessments have been made which, under the opinion of the Attorney. General heretofore published, are erroneous, claims may be made for abatement or refund, as the case may be. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Revenue, Washington, D. C., January 3, 1899. SIR: Your letter of the 27th ultimo, in regard to the collection of the $1 per barrel additional tax on fermented liquors which dealers had on hand the 14th day of June, 1898, has been received. The Attorney-General has decided that only beer in the hands of brewers, or stored in warehouse by them, is subject to the increased tax. Stock which was stored in hands of wholesale or retail dealers, who were not brewers or agents of brewers, is not subject to the additional tax. Where assessments have been made which, by this decision, are erroneous, claims can be made for abatement or refund, as the case may be. Respectfully, yours, N. B. SCOTT, Commissioner. Mr. JAMES D. GILL, Collector Third District, Boston Mass. (20488.) Increased tax on fermented liquors. Additional opinion of the Attorney-General in regard to the tax on fermented liquors under the provisions of the war-revenue act of June 13, 1898. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Washington, D. C., January 4, 1899. The appended opinion of the honorable Attorney-General is hereby promulgated for the information and guidance of all officers of the Internal-Revenue Service. N. B. SCOTT, Commissioner. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D. C., December 30, 1898. SIR: In your letter of October 13, in addition to the question whether fermented liquors held by retail dealers on June 14, 1898, were subject to the additional tax of $1, you submit three questions growing out of the provisions of the war-revenue act of June 13, 1898, for a discount of 7 per cent upon all sales by collectors to brewers of the stamps provided for the payment of the tax, namely: (1) Is the tax to be assessed upon fermented liquors, in case of attempted evasion and willful failure to buy and to fix the stamps, a tax of $2 per barrel, or a tax of $1.85 per barrel? (2) Is the additional tax to be assessed and collected upon fermented liquors stored in warehouse on June 14, 1898, a tax of $1 per barrel or of 92 cents? (3) Is the tax upon fermented liquors, bearing the $1 stamp, which were removed from the brewery on June 14, 1898, without the new $2 stamp, owing to the failure of the Government to furnish the same, a tax of $2 per barrel or of $1.85 or of 85 cents? First. In case of evasion and willful failure to buy and affix the necessary stamps, it is clear that the tax should be collected and assessed at its full amount, $2 per barrel. Second. Since the discount is only allowed upon sales of stamps by collectors to brewers, and since the law provides that the additional tax imposed on liquors shall be assessed and collected in the manner now provided by law for the collection of taxes not paid by stamps, it is obvious that the discount does not apply to the additional tax, and that this must be assessed and collected at the full rate of $1. Third. Your third question does not state the facts with sufficient fullness and clearness to enable me to express an opinion. Just under what circumstances, and in accordance with what arrangement, the brewers were permitted to remove their beer from the breweries or bonded warehouses on June 14, 1898, by affixing the old $1 stamp, and leaving the additional tax to be adjusted afterwards, does not appear. The facts with relation to the circumstances under which fermented liquors were removed from breweries on June 14, 1898, without the new $2 stamp being affixed thereto, and with regard to any arrangement or understanding had with the brewers concerning a subsequent adjustment of the additional tax due, should be fully stated. Respectfully, yours, JOHN W. GRIGGS, Attorney-General. The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. (20498.) Special tax-Ingwer liqueur. Ingwer liqueur, composed of alcoholic liquor and sugar, with a flavoring of ginger, is not a medicine under whatever label it may be sold, but belongs in the general class of liqueurs or cordials, for the manufacture of which for sale the special tax of a rectifier must be paid, and for sale of which the special tax of a liquor dealer. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Washington, D. C., January 4, 1899. SIR: Schroeder Brothers, 766 Milwaukee avenue, Chicago, recently sent to this office a package containing 1 bottle of ingwer liqueur, which has been analyzed by the chemist here, who reports, under date of the 27th ultimo, that "it is not of a medicinal character, ut a beverage of the general class of liqueurs or cordials containing large amounts of alcohol and sugar," and that "the ginger (ingwer) is simply a flavor, just as the anise is the flavor in the liqueurs calie ansette," and "is not present in sufficient quantities to exhibit it as a medicine, and there is nothing about the sample to recommend it as a medicine." * You will, therefore, please inform Schroeder Brothers that they can not manufacture this ingwer liqueur for sale without subjecting themselves to special tax as rectifiers, nor sell it without paying special tax as liquor dealers and that all persons engaged in selling it must be required to pay special tax as liquor dealers under the internal-revenue laws of the United States. Respectfully, yours, N. B. SCOTT, Commissioner. Mr. F. E. COYNE, Collector First District, Chicago, Ill. (20502.) Special tax-Retail dealer's sale of packages aggregating 5 gallons. Where a retail dealer sells to one person a one-eighth barrel of one kind of beer, a one-eighth barrel of another kind, and so on, upon a single order, he subjects himself to special tax as a wholesale dealer, unless each package differs in price from the other, in which case each is regarded as the subject of a separate sale, or unless (where the beers are similar in price and quality) a separate order is given by the purchaser for each package. In either of these cases, each package is to be regarded as separately sold, and the special tax of a wholesale dealer is not required to be pail therefor. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Washington, D. C., January 6, 1899. SIR: In reply to your letter of the 22d ultimo, relating to the sale, by a retail malt liquor dealer or retail liquor dealer, of “an eighth barrel of Schlitz's beer, an eighth barrel of Pabst's beer, and an eighth barrel of Anheuser-Busch's beer to the same person," you are hereby advised that if the person buying gave to the retail dealer a separate order for each of these separate packages of beer, each package was the subject of a separate sale, and the retail dealer is not required to pay special tax a wholesale dealer for delivering all the packages at one time to the purchaser on these separate orders. If, however, but a single order was given for all these packages of beer, they must all be regarded as disposed of at a single sale, and the retail dealer must be required to pay special tax as a wholesale dealer, unless it is shown that each of these different kinds and packages of beer was sold at a different price from the other packages. If this be shown, each different kind and package of beer must be regarded as having been separately sold, and in such case the special tax of a wholesale dealer is not required to be paid. Respectfully, yours, Mr. F. VON BAUMBACH, N. B. SCOTT, Commissioner. Collector Internal Revenue, St. Paul, Minn. (20509.) Special tax-Fake wine. The manufacturer of the compound liquor known as "Fake wine" is required to pay special tax as rectifier; each bottle of the compound is subject to stamp tax under Schedule B, act of June 13, 1898. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Washington, D. C., January 9, 1899. SIR: Your letter of the 22d ultimo has been received concerning a compound known as "Fake wine," manufactured by the Northrop & Sturgis Company, of Portland, Oreg., and "composed of ext. champ. cit. acid, syrup, sherry, and white wine." The wine of which this "Fake wine" is in part composed, as it is understood from your statement, is a genuine wine "produced in California." If so, the compound, though made in imitation of sparkling wine or champagne, is not such a liquor as that described in section 3328, Revised Statutes, upon which tax is imposed by that section; but the Northrop & Sturgis Company must be reined to pay special tax as rectifiers under the third subdivision of section 3244, Revised Statutes, for manufacturing this compound for sale. Each bottle of it put up for sale is subject to the tax imposed by that provision of Schedule B of the act of June 13, 1898, which reads: Sparkling or other wines, when bottled for sale, upon each bottle containing one pint or less, one cent. Upon each bottle containing more than one pint, two cents. You will please report the case for assessment of special tax and penalty against the Northrop & Sturgis Company as rectifiers, and also ascertain and 13port the amount of stamp tax under Schedule B for which they have rendered themselves liable in sending out these bottles of wine without the requisite stamp. Respectfully, yours, Mr. DAVID M. DUNNE, G. W. WILSON, Acting Commissioner. Collector Internal Revenue, Portland, Oreg. (20755.) Refunding-Additional tax on beer, etc. Preparation of claims for refunding the additional tax paid on fermented liquors. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Washington, D. C., February 28, 1899. SIR: As requested in yours of the 11th instant, I return herewith the claim on Form 46 of P. Fred. Simon for the refunding of $114.75, additional tax paid on beer. In preparing such claims all blank spaces should be filled; the blank space marked thus should be filled as follows: "Additional tax on beer on hand June 14, 1898." In stating the reason for the remission or refunding of the tax, claimant should say: Deponent (or the said firm) was neither a brewer nor the agent of a brewer, but was engaged exclusively in the bottling of beer and selling the same (or in wholesaling or retailing liquors or malt liquors); that on the 14th day of June, 1898, he (or they) had on hand -bar rels of beer (ale or porter), of which he was (or they were) the bona fide owner (or owners), having purchased the same, tax paid, prior to June 14, 1898, from Claims made with the above statements, either on Form 46 supplied by this office, or on a suitably prepared private form, properly certified, will be considered by this office in due course of business. Where parties making claims are, or have been, agents of brewers or hold themselves out to the public as agents of brewers, you should satisfy yourself whether they actually owned the beer in question or whether it was the property of a brewer. Respectfully, yours, Mr. A. D. SANDERS, N. B. SCOTT, Commissioner. Collector Turenty-eighth District, Rochester, N. Y. MEDICINAL PREPARATIONS. (See also PETROLATUM; PROPRIETARY ARTICLES; and DECISION 20498, p. 181.) (20839.) Bicarbonate of soda held to be an uncompounded medicinal chemical, and exempt from tax under section 20, act of June 13, 1898. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Washington, D. C., March 10, 1899. SIR: Referring to your letter in regard to the taxability of bicarbonate of soda prepared in New York by Church & Co., known as the |