Legal Opinion

Seiberling Rubber Co. v. Commissioner

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided May 8, 1934No. 6410PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MOORMAN, Circuit Judge.

During the years 1922 and 1923 the petitioner, a Delaware corporation, was affiliated with the Portage Rubber Company and the Lehigh Rubber Company within the meaning of section 240 (e) of the Revenue Acts of 1921 and 1924 (42 Stat. 260; 43 Stat. 288 [26 USCA § 99-3 note]). The affiliates filed a consolidated income tax return for those years. In 1922 each of them sustained a loss. In 1923 the petitioner made a profit, but each of the other two affiliates sustained a loss. On February 18,1924, the Seiberling Rubber Company, an Ohio corporation, was brought into the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Woolford Realty Co. v. RoseSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. Delaware & Hudson Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1933
  3. Beneficial Loan Soc. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1933

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. O'Rear v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1935
  2. Rubel v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1934
  3. S. Slater & Sons, Inc. v. WhiteCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API