Legal Opinion
R. A. Riddell, District Director, Internal Revenue, Los Angeles District v. California Portland Cement Company
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 2, 1964No. 18506_1PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JERTBERG, Circuit Judge:
The prior history of this controversy is fully set out in our opinion in Riddell v. California Portland Cement Company, 297 F.2d 345 (9th Cir. 1962), and need not be repeated here. In that case we noted that the taxpayer had elected to take the pre-kiln seed cutoff point as to all taxable years here involved, pursuant to Public Law 86-781 § 4, 74 Stat. 1017, 1018, 26 U.S.C. § 613 note. We remanded the cause to the district court “for the making of new findings and conclusions, and the entry of a judgment consistent with the teachings of [United States v. Cannelton…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Helvering v. Bankline Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Helvering v. Twin Bell Oil SyndicateSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Parsons v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- United States v. Cannelton Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Riddell v. Monolith Portland Cement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1963
3Cited by8 opinions
- United States v. California Portland Cement Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969
- United States v. Ideal Basic Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1969
- The Whitehall Cement Manufacturing Company, in No. 15603 v. United States of America, in No. 15604Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1966
- Southwestern Portland Cement Company, a Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1971
- Whitehall Cement Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1965
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.