federal taxes, in which the United States has not consented to be sued in the manner attempted herein, (2) the suit is in substance an action against the United States, to which it has not consented to be sued, (3) plaintiff lacks the standing to sue, (4) no justiciable controversy is presented, (5) adequate remedies at law exist for the enforcement of the rights sought to be protected, and (6) for the reason (first advanced in supplemental memorandum filed February 27, 1957, subsequent to the original hearing on the motion on November 1, 1956, an additional hearing having been requested in the interim) plaintiff permitted, prior to commencing this action, any controversy between itself and defendants to become moot. The requested additional hearing was had on April 5, 1957.
Cuba Mail's contract with the Maritime Administration having terminated, and all of the monies in its capital reserve fund having been withdrawn for its general use, the only legal significance of any consequence to be derived from either the injunctive relief or the declaratory judgment sought, and the only real benefit which might thereby inure to Cuba Mail is a reduced tax liability. (Values of its assets and capital stock, its general financial stability and aid in making proper bookkeeping entries are urged by plaintiff as rights which are violated by the action of defendants.)
As developed by defendants' requests for admission of facts, and plaintiff's admission that each of the statements inquired into thereby is true, AGWI filed with the District Director of Internal Revenue a federal consolidated income tax return for itself and subsidiary companies, including Cuba Mail, in which the sum of $ 1,161,407.48 was deducted from the total on deposit in Cuba Mail's reserve funds as of December 31, 1953, justification for which was stated as follows:
Reimbursement as at December 31, 1953 of general funds with respect to amounts expended for the purchase and reconstruction of the vessels * * * -- (employed by New York and Cuba Mail Steamship Co. on an essential foreign trade service) -- under the provisions of Section 607(b) of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936.
This makes it quite evident that the very actual and practical 'case or controversy' here involved is the question of tax liability, and it is also evident that this question should be settled by either the administrative authority of the Government having control of tax matters or by a court authorized by the Congress to review and determine the legality of such action. The question of whether or not the application of monies in the capital reserve fund in circumstances where, as here, capital stock instead of the fund itself was used for the acquisition and reconstruction of vessels under subsidy contracts is a matter solely to be determined in the discretion of the Maritime Administration can certainly be determined by any court having jurisdiction of the tax liability. If such matter is solely within the discretion of such authority, it is clear that neither this Court nor any other can direct how that discretion should have been, or should now be, exercised. If, on the other hand, as seems to be the real contention of the plaintiff, such application is required by the real intent of the Act, then it is equally clear that a court having jurisdiction of the tax controversy could give the relief which is here sought. The Congress has constituted the Tax Court as a forum in which a deficiency assessment can be questioned, from which Court appeals may be taken to the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals. Congress has also provided that, where a tax is paid, a suit for refund thereof may be maintained in the appropriate United States District Court or the Court of Claims. National Enforcement Commission v. Slim Olson, Inc., 95 U.S.App.D.C. 218, 221 F.2d 92. It is thus evident that the relief here sought can be obtained under the procedures which have been provided by Congress, and, therefore, it would be beyond the scope of this Court to entertain the present proceedings for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. American President Lines, Ltd. v. Federal Maritime Board, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 235 F.2d 18.
The motion of defendants to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in this Court will be granted. Counsel will prepare an appropriate order to carry this decision into effect.