Legal Opinion

Atlas Powder Co. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided April 7, 1930No. J-151PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LITTLETON, Judge.

The question in this ease is the same as that this date decided by the court in West Leeehburg Steel Company, 39 F.(2d) 131, the provisions of section 1019 of the Revenue Aet of 1924, 43 Stat. 253, 346, or section 1116 of the Revenue Aet of 1926, 44 Stat. 9, 119, section 153, note, tit. 26, USCA, control in determining the amount of interest to whieh the plaintiff is entitled upon overpayments for 1916 and 1918.

The plaintiff claims that the provisions of section 1019 of the Revenue Act of 1924 (26 USCA § 153 note) govern and that it is entitled to interest to the date of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Girard Trust Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1930
  3. Crozier-Straub, Inc. v. Maryland Concrete Corp.District Court, D. Maryland · 1930
  4. Pittsburgh Bridge & Iron Works v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1929

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Kingan & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1930
  2. Consolidated Paper Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1932
  3. Rahr Malting Company, a Wisconsin Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1958
  4. Pottstown Iron Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1930
  5. Revolution Cotton Mills v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1930

3 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