## Facts

- The Viking Manufacturing Company, Inc. manufactured and sold jigsaw picture puzzles between June 21, 1932, and May 1, 1933.
- The puzzles were made by cutting selected pictures, backed with rigid cardboard, into 162 to 500 pieces and sold for amusement in reassembling the image.
- A federal excise tax was collected under § 609 of the Revenue Act of 1932, captioned “Tax on Sporting Goods,” which imposed a manufacturer’s tax on specifically listed sporting articles and more generally on “games and parts of games” and similar articles commonly or commercially known as sporting goods.
- The government assessed the tax on the theory that jigsaw picture puzzles were taxable “games” (or parts of games) under § 609.
- After the company entered bankruptcy, its trustee sued the former Collector of Internal Revenue to recover $37,021.63 paid as the excise tax.

## Issues

1. Whether jigsaw picture puzzles fall within the term “games” in § 609 of the Revenue Act of 1932 and are therefore subject to the manufacturer’s excise tax on sporting goods.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and held that jigsaw picture puzzles are not “games” within the meaning of § 609.
- The trustee was entitled to recover the excise taxes collected on the sale of the puzzles.
- The Court relied on statutory context, commercial usage distinguishing puzzles from games, and prior administrative practice of not taxing puzzles under similar provisions.
- Any reasonable doubt about the reach of the taxing provision was resolved in favor of the taxpayer.

## Legal Principles

- General terms in a taxing statute that follows a list of specific items are interpreted in light of the enumerated items and the statutory setting, including headings addressing the subject matter (here, “sporting goods”).
- Commercial or trade usage may inform the meaning of statutory classifications, especially where evidence shows a settled distinction in the relevant market.
- Consistent prior administrative treatment under similar provisions may support a narrower reading of an ambiguous classification.
- Where a taxing statute’s meaning is reasonably doubtful, it is construed most favorably to the taxpayer.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that § 609’s excise tax on sporting goods and “games” did not reach jigsaw picture puzzles, and it required a refund because ambiguity in tax statutes is read against the government and consistent with commercial understanding and prior practice.


White v. Aronson, 302 U.S. 16 (1937)