Legal Opinion

Yocum v. Rothensies

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided December 10, 1936No. 6157PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

A full consideration of this case satisfies us that both the issues involved were correctly decided by the court below. The opinion of Judge Kirkpatrick (In re Hoffman [D.C.] 16 F.Supp. 391), sets forth a satisfactory statement of the principles involved. We need only add that section 64a of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended (11 U. S.C.A. § 104(a), which authorizes the Bankruptcy Court to determine any question arising as to the amount, or’legality of a tax due and owing by the bankrupt, does not confer authority upon the court to waive the requirement of the Revenue Act (26 U.S.C.A. § 23 (k)…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In Re HoffmanDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1936

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Baumann v. SheehanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1944
  2. Hadley Falls Trust Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1938
  3. Bair v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1937
  4. Corona v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1992
  5. Supplee v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API