Legal Opinion
Omaha Baum Iron Store, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided November 5, 1934No. L-482PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LITTLETON, Judge.
The facts of record are insufficient to warrant the conclusion that plaintiff was affiliated with all or any of the five corporations under the rule announced in Handy & Harman v. Burnet, 284 U. S. 136, 52 S. Ct. 51, 76 L. Ed. 207, and Pokorny Estate v. United States, 59 F.(2d) 236, 75 Ct. Cl. 459. An examination of the stockholdings, which we have deemed unnecessary to set forth in detail in the findings but which fully appear in the record, shows that the same interests did not hold substantially all the stock of each of the corporations claimed to have been affiliated with…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Handy & Harman v. BurnetSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Burnet v. PorterSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- McIlhenny v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1930
- Talcott v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928
- Oak Worsted Mills v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1929
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Sharpe v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1939
- Commissioner v. Newport Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1941