Legal Opinion

Plym v. United States

District Court, W.D. Michigan

Decided November 30, 1971No. CA 5443PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

ENGEL, District Judge.

This memorandum opinion supplements the remarks made by the court in granting defendant’s motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiffs’ case. As the court indicated in open court, the sole issue is whether plaintiff taxpayers, Lawrence J. and Mary L. Plym, 1 were entitled to take as a deduction under 212 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, the payment of $75,000.00 to the firm of Spingarn, Heine and Company, New York stockbrokers, as an ordinary and necessary expense .... either (1) “for the production or collection of income”, or (2)…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Welch v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  2. United States v. GilmoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Woodward v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. United States v. Hilton Hotels Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Harrison E. Spangler and Myrtle B. Spangler v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Great Lakes Pipe Line Company v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API