Legal Opinion

Ambergris Consol. Mining. Co. v. United States

District Court, D. Idaho

Decided June 13, 1939No. 1401PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAVANAH, District Judge.

The plaintiff, a mining company, seeks a recovery of back capital stock taxes paid under protest for the years 1934, 1935 and 1936. The controverted question is whether under the particular facts here, the activities engaged in by plaintiff constituted “carrying on or engaging in business” within the scope of the Revenue Act of 1934, and amendment of 1936 (49 Stat. 1733), which provides:

“(a) For each year ending June 30, beginning with the year ending June 30, 1934, there is hereby imposed upon every domestic corporation with respect to carrying on or doing business…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. Emery, Bird, Thayer Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
  2. United Mercury Mines Co. v. VileyDistrict Court, D. Idaho · 1937

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Lyon Lumber Co. v. HarrisonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1940
  2. Hercules Mining Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Idaho · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API