Laemmle v. Eisner
District Court, S.D. New York
Action by Carl Laemmle against Mark Eisner, ex-Collector of Internal Revenue, etc. Verdict directed for defendant, and against plaintiff. At the close of the plaintiff’s ease, defendant, withont submitting any evidence, moved for the direction of a verdict in his favor.
Read the full summary
Action by Carl Laemmle against Mark Eisner, ex-Collector of Internal Revenue, etc. Verdict directed for defendant, and against plaintiff. At the close of the plaintiff’s ease, defendant, withont submitting any evidence, moved for the direction of a verdict in his favor. The facts disclosed by the evidence introduced in behalf of the plaintiff are substantially as follows: The Universal Film Manufacturing Company was organized in 1912 with a capital stock of §2,000,000, consisting of 10,000 shares of preferred stock and 10,000 shares of common stock, of the par value of §100 each. On May…
1Opinion of the Court
SHEPPARD, District Judge.
After a full consideration of the facts of this case, I am constrained to the view that the sum of attorney’s fees paid in the litigation for the mastery of the Horsley stock, resulting in practically the ownership or control thereof and the consequent management of the company, under the facts and circumstances disclosed by the record, constituted a capital investment, and not a “necessary expense actually paid in carrying on the business,” deductible from income derived from such business. Therefore a verdict will be directed in favor of the defendant, and against…
2Cited by22 opinions
- Eitingon-Schild Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1931
- Kissel v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
- Croker v. BurnetCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1933
- King Amusement Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1930
- Crowley v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1937
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.