Legal Opinion
Rouss v. Bowers
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided February 4, 1929No. 149PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSwan, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
Tho appellant was engaged in trade or business up to May 13, 1918. Any net income resulting from his trading the Revenue Act of 1918 taxes to him. 40 Stat. 1057. Of course, tho seller of a business may by contract require the purchaser to reimburse him for the income tax he may be obliged to- pay on account of earnings of the business prior to the sale, but be cannot by contract escape the tax.' See Mitchel v. Bowers (C. C. A. 2) 15 F. (2d) 287.
The appellant’s contention seems to he that any earnings of the business during his period of ownership in 1918…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Botany Worsted Mills v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- United States v. RindskopfSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Bishoff v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1928
- Rieck v. HeinerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1928
3Cited by20 opinions
- Giddio v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1970
- Figueiredo v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1970
- Loose v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934
- 2 Lexington Ave. Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1956
- Hellman v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1930
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.