Legal Opinion
Inecto, Inc. v. Higgins
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided November 17, 1937PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GODDARD, District Judge.
Inecto, Inc., the plaintiff, has brought this action to recover manufacturer’s excise taxes of $2,923.06 for March, 1933; and $4,166.67 for August, 1933, paid under protest. The plaintiff is a manufacturer of toilet preparations, hair dyes, and miscellaneous cosmetics, and the tax was imposed upon certain of their articles under section 603 of the Revenue Act of 1932, 26 U.S. C.A. § 1420 et seq. note.
On April 18, 1930, Andrevan, Inc., was incorporated in New York and soon after acquired the stock of three existing corporations — Sales Affiliates, Inc., of New York,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Gregory v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Bourjois, Inc. v. McGowanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1936
- Concentrate Mfg. Corporation v. HigginsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
- Bourjois, Inc. v. McGowanDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1935
3Cited by20 opinions
- Campana Corporation v. HarrisonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1940
- Creme Manufacturing Co., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
- Duradene Co. v. MagruderDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1937
- Webber v. KnoxCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
- Williams v. HarrisonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1940
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.