Legal Opinion

Hurst, Anthony & Watkins, Inc. v. Heiner

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided February 9, 1928No. 3315PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.

This is an action to recover income and profits taxes, alleged to have been illegally collected for the calendar years 1917 and 1918. A jury trial was waived, and the case tried before the court without a jury.

The question involved is whether or not the plaintiff is properly classed as to the year 1917 under section 209 of the Revenue Act of 1917 (Comp. St. § 6336%j), as a corporation “having no invested capital or not more than a nominal capital,” and as in the year 1918 whether or not under section 200 of the Revenue Act of 1918 (Comp. St. § 6336%a), the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hubbard-Ragsdale Co. v. DeanDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1926
  2. Iredell v. De Laski & Thropp Circular Woven Tire Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1923
  3. Fuller & Smith v. RoutzahnDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1927
  4. Mountain View Sanitarium Co. v. HuntleyDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1927

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Atlantic Coast Distributors v. Com'r of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1929
  2. Meinrath Brokerage Co. v. CrooksDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1928
  3. William A. Brady Theatre Co. v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
  4. Alexander, Conover & Martin, Inc. v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API