Legal Opinion

S. W. Flower Co. v. Denman

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided March 27, 1936No. 3846PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

HAHN, District Judge.

This is an action for the recovery of income tax claimed to have been unlawfully assessed and collected by the defendant. Recovery is sought for the fiscal years ending April 30, 1919, and April 30, 1920, in the amount of $25,480.48. The sole reason advanced for such recovery in the evidence is that the commissioner unlawfully reduced the salaries voted to the officers of the plaintiff company by its directors for said years.

The view I am compelled to take of the case makes it necessary to consider only one of the defenses of the government. It is urged that the court had…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Davis v. WakeleeSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Sturm v. BokerSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  3. Bemis Bro. Bag Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  4. United States v. Henry Prentiss & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
  5. United States v. Factors & Finance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Howard v. S.D. CalDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API