Legal Opinion

Ralston Purina Co. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided June 6, 1932No. L-506PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LITTLETON, Judge.

Plaintiff first contends that the deficiency for the fiscal year 1918 was not timely assessed. The return for that fiscal year, to be used in computing the statute of limitation within which the commissioner could malte an assessment for such fiscal year, was the completed consolidated return filed by plaintiff June 16, 1919, under and pursuant to the provisions of the Revenue Act of 1918, approved February 24, 1919, which was retroactive to January 1, 1918 (40 Sta.t. 1057). Davis Feed Co., 2 B. T. A. 616; Covert Gear Co., 4 B. T. A. 1025; Fred T. Ley & Co. v. Comm., 9 B. T.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Dickerson v. ColgroveSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. United States v. UpdikeSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  3. Myers v. Hurley Motor Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
  4. Updike v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1925
  5. Lucas v. HuntCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1930

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. In Re Adoption of a MinorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1944
  2. Cary v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1967
  3. Charles A. Zahn Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1934
  4. Howbert v. NorrisCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1934
  5. Clifton Mfg. Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. South Carolina · 1933

17 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