Legal Opinion
Handy v. Commissioner
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided January 5, 1931No. 56PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SWAN, Circuit Judge.
Handy & Harman is a New York corporation. Hamilton & .De Loss, Inc., is a Connecticut corporation. The issue presented by this appeal is whether from January 1,1918, to February 1, 1919, they were affiliated corporations within the meaning of section 240 (b) of the Revenue Act of 1918 (40 Stat. 1057, 1082). The Commissioner ruled against affiliation, and denied the use of consolidated returns in determining the petition*185er’s taxes for the years in question. His action was confirmed by the Board, whose findings of fact and opinion are reported in 17 B. T. A. 980.
Six men…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Adolph Hirsch & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
- Ice Service Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
- United States v. CLEVELAND, P. & ER CO.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1930
- Lavenstein Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1928
- Commissioner v. Richfield Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1930
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Consolidated Sun Ray, Inc. v. LeaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. City Button WorksCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co. v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1931
- Onondaga Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- Commissioner v. Gong Bell Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.