Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Donald E. Baker and Barbara M. Baker v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided June 23, 1972No. 20353Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLay, Circuit Judge
I join the per curiam analysis that the words “any distribution” within the parenthetical clause of § 316(a) (2) include redemptive distributions but I cannot agree that this interpretation accords a priority in the reduction of current earnings and profits for ordinary dividends. I cannot accept the positions taken by Judge Gibson and Judge Bright which for differing reasons accord a priority to dividends in reducing current earnings and profits.
Judge Gibson reasons that § 312(a) “has no application to the problem before us.” Thus, he limits the focus of his opinion to the interplay of §…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Richards v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Gould v. GouldSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Hassett v. WelchSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- J. E. Davant and Kathryn Davant v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. J. E. Davant and Kathryn DavantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1966
- Edwards v. DouglasSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.