Legal Opinion

Glendinning, McLeish & Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Rev.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided December 5, 1932No. 74PublishedCited by 48 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChase, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

The contention of the petitioner that tho agreement for reimbui’sement applied only to subdivision (b) of paragraph (6) flies in tho face of the fact that there was not only no limitation in terms to subdivision (b), but an apparent impossibility of performance if it covered only that. For, if the Belfast company upon dissolution should be without assets sufficient to pay to its j) referred stockholders the par value of the preferred, stock then outstanding, it would, of course, be without funds with which to reimburse the petitioner for any payments it made…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Cohan v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
  2. Island Petroleum Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Rev.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1932

3Cited by48 opinions

  1. Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1980
  2. Podems v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1955
  3. John Manocchio v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
  4. Canelo v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1969
  5. Patchen v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1956

43 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