Legal Opinion
International Banding Mach. Co. v. Commissioner
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided January 20, 1930No. 32PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSwan, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The board gave no reason for denying the taxpayer’s motion to amend its petition to conform to the proofs, except a reference to its rules 18 and 32. The material portions of these rules read as follows:
“Rule 18. Amended and Supplemental Pleadings. * * * Upon motion made, the board may, in its discretion, at any time *662before the conclusion of the hearing, permit a party to a proceeding to amend the pleadings to conform to the proofs.”
“Rule 32. Motions. Motions must be timely. * * * Motions will be acted upon as justice may require. * * * ”
The motion was made…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Jones v. MeehanSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Tucker v. AlexanderSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Chicago Ry. Equipment Co. v. BlairCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1927
- Blair v. CurranCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1928
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- John Factor v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
- Robert A. Henningsen, and Cross and R.A. And Margaret Henningsen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, AndCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1957
- Law v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1985
- Bonwit Teller & Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- Koufman v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1977
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.