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

  1. Rose v. GrantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1930
  2. Alameda Inv. Co. v. McLaughlinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
  3. Buttolph v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1928
  4. Moran v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1933
  5. Grant v. RoseDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1928

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. United States v. PettigrewCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
  2. Export Leaf Tobacco Co. v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
  3. R. H. Macy & Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1957
  4. Stewart v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1951
  5. Pacific Nat. Co. v. WelchCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1937

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API