Legal Opinion

Cuno Engineering Corp. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided June 16, 1930No. H-278PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BOOTH, Chief Justice.

This is a tax ease, involving the exaction of the amount claimed under section 900 of the Revenue Act of 1921 (42 Stat. 227, 291). The cited section reads as follows:

“That from and after January 1, 1922, there shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid upon the following articles sold or leased by the manufacturer, producer, or importer, a tax equivalent to the following percentages of the price for which so sold or leased—
“(1) Automobile trucks and automobile wagons (including tires, inner tubes, parts, and accessories therefor, sold on or in connection therewith or…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Milwaukee Motor Products, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1928
  2. Edison Storage Battery Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1929
  3. Wells Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1928
  4. Auburn Rubber Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1929

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Benmatt Organization, Inc. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1955
  2. Crawford Mfg. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API