Penrose v. Skinner
District Court, D. Colorado
At Law. Action by Spencer Penrose against Mark A. Skinner, Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Colorado. On motion by plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings.
1Opinion of the Court
LEWIS, District Judge.
This is an action of indebitatus assumpsit to recover $12,538.77 paid under protest by plaintiff to defendant'. The amount was made up of $12,056.51 exacted from the plaintiff under the Act of October 3, 1913 (38 Stat. 166), as additional income tax for the year 1913, and the remainder, $482.26, was interest on that sum.
The questions now presented arise on plaintiff’s motion for judgment in his favor on the conceded facts which appear in the pleadings. Those facts, gathered from the complaint, exhibits thereto, and admissions in the answer, are these: Within the time…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Burfenning v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
- United States v. KaufmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- United States v. ChamberlinSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- United States v. Savings BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Bailey v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1875
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Woodworth v. KalesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1928
- Couzens v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928
- Duel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1941
- Boyne City Lumber Co. v. DoyleDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1930
- Dallas Brass & Copper Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1926
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.