United States v. Kaufman
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtMayer, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The fundamental fallacy of the contention on behalf of the government is that it confuses priority with the existence of a fund out of which taxes are payable or collectable. The authority to tax must be found somewhere. The Revenue Act of 1918, in section 1400 thereof (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 637l%a), specifically repealed, inter alia, title 1, including section 8 (e) of the Revenue Act of 1916 (Comp. St. '§ 6336h), and title 2, including section 201 of the Revenue Act of 1917.
The provisions of the tax statute here concerned are thus section 218 (a)…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Walker v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- National City Bank of NY v. HotchkissSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Lewis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Marshall v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Ketchum v. St. LouisSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- United States v. KaufmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Johnson Shipyards CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
- Archbald v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
- In Re StavinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1925
- In Re Fergusson Drug Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1937
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.