Legal Opinion
Safety Electric Products Co. v. Helvering
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 13, 1934No. 7240PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GARRECHT, Circuit Judge.
The facts, stipulated to, were found by the board to be as follows:
"The petitioner [Safety Electric Products Company] is a California Corporation. The Woodill and Hulse Electric Company, Inc., and the Motor and Machinists Supply Company are also-corporations organized under the laws of California.
"From January 1, 1926 to October 1, 1926, the stock ownership of these three companies was such as to permit the filing of a consolidated return under Section 240 of the Revenue Act of 1926 (See sixty day letter attached to Petition). During this latter period 99.81 per cent…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Rose v. GrantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1930
- Alameda Inv. Co. v. McLaughlinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
- Buttolph v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1928
- Moran v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1933
- Grant v. RoseDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1928
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. PettigrewCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
- Export Leaf Tobacco Co. v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
- R. H. Macy & Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1957
- Stewart v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1951
- Pacific Nat. Co. v. WelchCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1937
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.