Legal Opinion
Diebold, Incorporated v. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided April 4, 1990No. 89-1349PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MAYER, Circuit Judge.
OPINION
Diebold, Inc. appeals the judgment of the United States Claims Court, 16 Cl.Ct. 193 (1989), that, because Diebold changed its method of accounting without the Commissioner’s prior consent as required by section 446(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. § 446(e) (1982), it was not entitled to a refund of income taxes. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Neither party suggests that summary judgment was inappropriate. Therefore, we adopt the Claims Court’s statement of undisputed facts and recount only those necessary to our discussion.
Diebold, an accrual basis taxpayer,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Angelus Milling Co. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1980
- Beacon Publishing Company, a Kansas Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1955
- Standard Oil Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1981
- Black & Decker, Inc. Black & Decker (u.s.), Inc. And Cic Int'l Corp. v. Hoover Service Center, and the Hoover CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Minehan v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
- Sara Lee Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1993
- In Re Princo CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007
- Huffman v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- Pacific Enters. & Subsidiaries v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1993
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.