Legal Opinion

Manhattan General Equipment Co. v. Commissioner

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided April 15, 1935No. Nos. 162, 163PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge.

The first question before us is whether there was any deductible loss in 1925 because of the cancellation of the contract between Artemas Ward and Interborough Rapid Transit on November 1, 1925. This depends on whether the deductions for exhaustion allowed to Artemas Ward between March 1, 1913, and March 13, 1922, when the latter transferred the contract to Artemas Ward, Inc. (N. Y.), in exchange for all the stock of.that corporation, should be added to the deductions for exhaustion allowed to Artemas Ward, Inc. (N. Y.), between, the date of transfer and the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Great Northern Railway Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. Brushaber v. Union Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  3. Arizona Grocery Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
  4. Burnet v. S. & L. Building Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
  5. American Compress & Warehouse Co. v. BenderCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1934

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Guy F. Atkinson Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1984
  2. Guy F. Atkinson Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API