Legal Opinion
Biermann v. Shea
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided June 16, 1939PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MANDELBAUM, District Judge.
This suit for a refund is predicated upon an overpayment of excise taxes. The government concedes that these taxes were erroneously paid by the plaintiff, but urges several defenses to the action. These defenses will be discussed after a brief recital of the relevant facts.
The plaintiff was a manufacturer of fur trimmed garments and relying upon Section 604 of the Revenue Act of 1932, 26 U.S.C.A. end of ch. 20, and Regulations 46, Article 24 in force at the time, paid the taxes on the sale of fur trimmed garments from June, 1932 to October, 1932 in the amount of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United States v. Felt & Tarrant Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- United States v. Jefferson Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Myers v. Hurley Motor Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Weagant v. BowersCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
- New York Life Ins. v. AndersonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1920
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- C. M. McClung & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1940
- United States v. Aluminum Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1941
- Charles Marchand Co. v. HigginsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1940
- Diamond & Baum, Inc. v. SheaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1943
- Wm. Filene's Sons Co. v. WhiteDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1939