Legal Opinion

John J. Roche Co. v. Eaton

District Court, D. Connecticut

Decided September 20, 1926No. 2966PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMAS, District Judge.

In this action the plaintiff company seeks to recover $607.-76, the amount of an excise tax levied on the business of the defendant and paid under protest. The assessment was levied under the provisions of section 900, title 9, of the Act of February 24,1919 (Comp. St. § 6309%a), the relevant parts of which read as follows:

“That there shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid upon the following articles sold or leased by the manufacturer, producer, or importer, a tax equivalent to the following percentages of the price for which so sold or-leased—
“(1) Automobile…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. Masao Hirasuna, Doing Business as Mike's Auto Top Shop & Upholstery Shop v. S. v. McKenney District Director of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
  2. Ellis Campbell, Jr., District Director of Internal Revenue at Dallas, Texas v. Lee R. Brown, D/B/A Brown's Top and Seat Cover Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1957
  3. United States v. H. H. Keeton, Sr., Trading and Doing Business as Virginia Auto Top CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1956
  4. Hirasuna v. McKenneyDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1955
  5. Keeton v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1956

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API