Legal Opinion
Dupuy v. McColgan
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 16, 1952No. Civ. 8107PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SCHOTTKY, J. pro tem.
Eight actions were commenced against the State Franchise Tax Commissioner to obtain a refund of personal income taxes paid by plaintiffs under protest for the years 1935 and 1936. The eight actions were consolidated for trial and were tried on a stipulation of facts from which the court made findings and drew the following conclusions of law:
“I
“That the income received by Monarch Investment Company under the oil lease referred to in the findings of fact was income from royalties within the meaning of subdivision (1) of section 2(o) of the California Personal Income Tax…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Burnet v. HarmelSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Crane v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Palmer v. BenderSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Murphy Oil Co. v. BurnetSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Callahan v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Pichon v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1989
- People v. FarinaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963