Duradene Co. v. Magruder
District Court, D. Maryland
1Opinion of the Court
CHESNUT, District Judge.
Whether “permanent waving fluid” used in the hairdressing art is subject to the federal excise tax on certain toilet articles (section 603 of the Revenue Act of 1932 [26 U.S.C.A. § 1420 et seq. note]) is the question presented in this case. The plaintiff, a manufacturer, was required to pay the tax in the amount of $738.69, for sales made in the period August 26, 1935, to July 31, 1936. After its timely petition for refund was denied, this suit was brought to recover the tax so paid. It is said to be a test case affecting about $100,000 of annual tax assessments. '
The…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Gould v. GouldSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- United States v. Jefferson Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Universal Battery Co. v. United States and Four Other CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Universal Battery Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- White v. AronsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Worthington Pump & Machinery Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1954
- C. M. McClung & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1940
- B & M Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1972
- Biermann v. SheaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- Mennen Co. v. KellyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.