Legal Opinion

Continental Oil Co. v. Commissioner

United States Board of Tax Appeals

Decided May 19, 1931No. Docket No. 28427PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*323OPINION.

Van Fossan:

The question of the validity of section 280 of the Revenue Act of 1926 has been disposed of by us in Henry Cappelini et al., 14 B. T. A. 1269 (cited in numerous subsequent decisions). See also Phillips v. Commissioner, 42 Fed. (2d) 177.

It is obvious that if the appropriate statutes of limitations bar the respondent there is no necessity to discuss the questions raised by the petitioner in allegations of error Nos. 2 and 3. For this reason *324we will consider first the allegation of the petitioner that such statutes bar the assessment and collection of the taxes proposed for…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Maine Shore Line Railroad v. Maine Central RailroadSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1899
  2. Lemars Shoe Co. v. Lemars Shoe Mfg. Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1900
  3. Carter, Carter & Meigs Co. v. Stewart Drug Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1916

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. General Mfg. Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1965
  2. Cem Sec. Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
  3. Alameda Park Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1932
  4. Continental Oil Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1931
  5. Garden City Feeder Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933

3 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