Legal Opinion

Handy & Harman v. Burnet

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided November 23, 1931No. 14PublishedCited by 107 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Mr. Justice * Butler

delivered the opinion of' the. Court.

Petitioner claims that it and Hamilton & DeLoss, Inc., were affiliated corporations as defined by § 240 of the Revenue Act of 1918 and that it is entitled to have its net income and invested capital for 1918 and the first month of 1919 determined on the basis of consolidated returns. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue held them not affiliated, rejected petitioner’s claim for abatement for 1918 and asserted a deficiency for 1919. The Board of Tax Appeals approved the Commissioner’s determination (17 B. T. A. 980) and upon petition for…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Wadhams & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1929

3Cited by107 opinions

  1. Old Mission Portland Cement Co. v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. Burnet v. Aluminum Goods Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
  3. Zehender & Factor, Inc. v. MurphyIllinois Supreme Court · 1944
  4. McLaughlin v. Pacific Lumber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
  5. Tide Water Oil Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934

102 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API