Legal Opinion

Pennroad Corp. v. Ladner

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided June 22, 1937No. 18578PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DICKINSON, District Judge.

This case raises an interesting question of law dependent upon an ultimate fact finding. There are no evidentiary facts in controversy. The real problem is to get .the correct concept of a transaction.

Title 8 of the Revenue Act of 1926, § 800 et seq., Schedule A — 3, 44 Stat. 101, imposes a stamp tax upon every share of .stock made the subject of any “sales or agreements to sell or memoranda of sales or deliveries of, or transfers of legal title to shares or certificates of stock * * * or to rights to subscribe for or to receive such shares or certificates, whether…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Founders General Corp. v. HoeySupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  3. White v. Consolidated Equities, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1935

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Baker v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1937
  2. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. HoeyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API