Legal Opinion
Heineman v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided March 15, 1968No. 212-64PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtColliNS, Judge
Taxpayers, the surviving wife and the surviving executors of the estate of Daniel Heineman, have brought this refund suit to recover overpayments of income taxes for the calendar years 1944 through 1946 and 1948 through 1952. The parties agree that recovery is time-barred unless the mitigation provisions of the Internal Bevenue Code of 1954, sections 1311-15, are applicable.
At all times during the period June 5,1940, through January 31,1962, Daniel Heineman, the decedent, owned common stock in the Missouri Kansas Pipe Line Company (hereinafter referred to as “Mokan”). During the years 1944…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- A. H. Karpe v. The United States. The United States (Cross-Complainant) v. Birda M. Viera (Cross-Defendant)United States Court of Claims · 1964
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate of Oscar Weinreich, Deceased, Geraldine Snyder Weinrich v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
- Moultrie Cotton Mills v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1957
- William G. Maguire v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1955
3Cited by15 opinions
- Money v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1987
- Brigham v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1972
- Herbert Birchenough and Edith Birchenough v. The United States. John J. Hurtz and Julia R. Hurtz v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1969
- Glatt v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1972
- Bolten v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1990
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.