Mutual Sav. & Loan Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
The petitioner is a Virginia industrial loan association whose business during the years 1936 and 1937 consisted entirely of receiving deposits and making loans and discounts. Held, that it is a "bank" within the meaning of section 104(a) of the Revenue Act of 1936.
1Opinion of the Court
*1205OPINION.
Smith:
The question presented by this proceeding is whether the petitioner is a bank within the purview of section 104 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1936, which provides:
As used in this section the term “hank” means a bank or trust company incorporated and doing business under the laws of the United States (including laws relating to the District of Columbia), of any State, or of any Territory, a substantial part of the business of which consists of receiving deposits and making loans and discounts, or of exercising fiduciary powers similar to those permitted to national banks under…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Austin State Bank v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1971
- MoneyGram International, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2015
- Austin State Bank v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1971
- Indianapolis Morris Plan Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1983
- Mutual Sav. & Loan Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1941