Legal Opinion

Overnite Transportation Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided March 12, 2002No. 99-P-1849PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKaplan, J.

We conclude, in agreement with the Appellate Tax Board, that the appellant corporation, the taxpayer, did not sustain its burden of proving, for purposes of the corporate excise tax, that a promissory note it declared as a dividend in favor of its parent corporation was true indebtedness. The Appellate Tax Board held correctly that the appellant’s claimed “interest” expenses could not be treated as deductions from gross income in respect to the net income measure of the appellant’s tax, nor could the note figure as a liability in calculating the net worth measure.

Narrative. 1. In 1985,…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Benjamin D. And Madeline Prentice Gilbert v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
  2. Fin Hay Realty Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
  3. Kraft Foods Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
  4. Roth Steel Tube Company v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1986
  5. State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. ReiserMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1979

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Bolt v. Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
  2. Silvia v. Securities DivisionMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2004
  3. IDC Research, Inc. v. Commissioner of RevenueMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2010
  4. National Grid Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner of RevenueMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2016
  5. Bolt v. Merrimack PharmaceutCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007

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

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

Powered by the Exa API