Legal Opinion
Fred N. Acker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided September 3, 1958No. 13320Published
1Opinion
On Petition for Rehearing
2Per curiam
Each party has petitioned for a rehearing. Petitioner but restates a portion of his earlier argument.
Respondent, however, now advances the contention that “the Treasury Regulation in question could hardly be inconsistent with the statute * * * because the language of the Treasury Regulation is almost identical to the language used by Congress in the Committee Reports dealing with the statute.” [Compare Treasury Regulation 111 § 29,294-1 (b) (3) (i), 26 C.F.R. (1949) with S.Rep. No. 221, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. 42 (1943 Cum.Bull, 1314, 1345), and H.R.Rep. No. 510, 78th…
3Cases cited15 opinions
- Manhattan General Equipment Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Koshland v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- United States v. CalamaroSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Morrill v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Hatfried, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Rev.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1947
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.