Legal Opinion
Armature Exchange, Inc. v. United States
District Court, S.D. California
Decided June 16, 1939No. 8437-YPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtYankwich, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
In Section 606(c) of the Revenue Act of 1932, the Congress provided:
“There is hereby imposed upon the following articles, sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer, a tax equivalent to the following percentages of the price for which so sold:
* * ❖
“(c) Parts or accessories (other than tires and inner tubes) for any of the articles enumerated in subsection (a) or (b), 2 per centum.”
This is followed by certain definitions and enumerations of specific articles, which do not concern us.
The Government, in insisting that the tax on rewound armatures was…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co. of Fla.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Hartranft v. WiegmannSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Anheuser-Busch Brewing Assn. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- State v. Newman Lumber Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1912
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- United States v. Armature Exchange, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1941
- State v. Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1965
- State v. AckerCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1970
- Con-Rod Exchange, Inc. v. HenricksenDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1939
- Hirasuna v. McKenneyDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1955
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.