Cochran v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Special Findings of Fact Filing of Refund Claim 1. Plaintiff, now a resident of New York, was in 1934 a resident of Maryland 'but had his office in the District of Columbia. He filed his individual income tax return for the calendar year 1934 on March 15, 1935, and paid the tax of $884.88 shown therein in four equal installments of $221.-22 on March 15, June 15, September 20, and December 17, 1935. This was not a joint return of plaintiff and his wife.
Read the full summary
Special Findings of Fact Filing of Refund Claim 1. Plaintiff, now a resident of New York, was in 1934 a resident of Maryland 'but had his office in the District of Columbia. He filed his individual income tax return for the calendar year 1934 on March 15, 1935, and paid the tax of $884.88 shown therein in four equal installments of $221.-22 on March 15, June 15, September 20, and December 17, 1935. This was not a joint return of plaintiff and his wife. An additional tax of $114.08, with $6,94 interest thereon, was assessed against plaintiff in March 1936 and he paid the total of $121.-02 on…
1Opinion of the Court
LITTLETON, Judge.
Plaintiff sues to recover an overpayment of individual income tax for 1934, on the ground that he was entitled to a deduction in that year which was not shown on his return, of $10,000 as a loss sustained as a result of certain stock for which he had paid, that amount becoming worthless in 1934. The evidence shows and it is admitted that plaintiff paid $10,000 for the stock in question and that this stock did become worthless in 1934 (finding 7).
Defendant first contends that the court is without jurisdiction of the case, because the refund claim filed in time on March 14,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Angelus Milling Co. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- United States v. AndrewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- United States v. Factors & Finance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Heller v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1940
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Computervision Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Inez De Amodio, in No. 13740, John Amodio (Marquis Deamodio), in No. 13741 v. Commissioner of Internatal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1962
- Addressograph-Multigraph Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1948
- Jones v. FIRST NAT. BLDG. CORPORATIONCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1946
- Jones v. FIRST NAT. BLDG. CORPORATIONCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1946
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.