Legal Opinion
Shearman v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided July 7, 1933No. 293PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtChase, Circuit Judge
(alter stating the facts as above).
Of course, when a statute speaks in language which leaves no doubt of the intent of Congress, contemporaneous administrative construction, if contrary to the terms of the statute, is merely erroneous, and has no effect except to call for correction. It cannot be relied upon as an accepted interpretation of the law. The Swift & Courtney & Beecher Company v. United States, 105 U. S. 691, 26 L. Ed. 1108; Isclin v. United States, 270 U. S. 245, 46 S. Ct. 248, 70 L. Ed. 566. The petitioner argues with force that is recognized that, when Congress used the words…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Brewster v. GageSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Iselin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Murphy Oil Co. v. BurnetSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- United States v. Dakota-Montana Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Burnet v. BrooksSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Loose v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934
- Askin & Marine Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1933
- Hewitt Realty Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
- Kuldell v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1934
- Watts v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.