Legal Opinion
United States v. Armature Rewinding Co.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided January 13, 1942No. 11973PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SANBORN, Circuit Judge.
The sole question for decision is whether the appellee, which as plaintiff sued to recover $1,139.64 paid as a manufacturer’s excise tax under the Revenue Act of 1932, c. 209, § 606(c), 47 Stat. 261, 1 upon sales of reconditioned or rebuilt automobile generators and armatures, was a manufacturer or producer of the articles sold within the meaning of the statute. 2
The trial court found that the appellee was not a “manufacturer” or “producer”, and the Government has appealed.
The evidentiary facts are not in substantial dispute. The appellee purchased and rebuilt…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Kidd v. PearsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- United States v. StewartSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- United States v. PelzerSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Helvering v. HammelSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Hartranft v. WiegmannSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Lawrence Keasler and Keasler Body Company, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1985
- Birmingham v. Geer Et UxCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1950
- Lazier v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1948
- Helvering v. Rebsamen Motors, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1942
- Henricksen v. SewardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1943
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.