Henderson v. . Gill, Comr. of Revenue
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.
The plaintiffs, having paid the tax under protest, base their right of recovery back upon either of two propositions: (a) That under the facts of this case the defendant is estopped from collection of the taxes now classified as delinquent because of the misdirection and laches of the collecting agency; and (b) that they were and are in fact and law not liable for the tax on the items of sale excluded by the Revenue Department’s auditor and agent, these being of the same character as now taxed.
1. From the stipulated facts it appears that the first report of sales made by the plaintiffs was…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Leonard v. MaxwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- State v. . BeversSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
- State v. . FinchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
- Curry v. ReevesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1940
- Snyder v. . Maxwell, Comr. of RevenueSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- AIRWORK SER. DIV., ETC. v. Director, Div. of TaxationSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
- Watson Industries, Inc. v. ShawSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Austin Liquor Mart, Inc. v. Department of RevenueIllinois Supreme Court · 1972
- Appeal of Clayton-Marcus Company, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
- Piedmont Canteen Service, Inc. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.