Legal Opinion
C. M. McClung & Co. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided November 12, 1940No. 44738PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWhitaker, Judge
This is a suit to recover floor stocks tax. The principal issue raised is whether or not the plaintiff has shown that it bore the burden of the amount of the tax. This is the only question we think it necessary to consider.
Section 902 of the Kevenue Act of 1936 (49 Stat. 1648) provides in part as follows:
No refund shall be made or allowed * * * of any amount paid by or collected from any claimant as tax under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, unless the ■claimant establishes * * * to the satisfaction of the trial court * * *.
*278(a) That he bore the burden of such amount and has not been relieved…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Lash's Products Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Duradene Co. v. MagruderDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1937
- Johnson v. Scott County Milling Co.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1937
- Biermann v. SheaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- Ismert-Hincke Milling Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1939
3Cited by8 opinions
- Worthington Pump & Machinery Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1954
- United States v. H. T. Poindexter & Sons Merchandise Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1942
- C. B. Cones & Son Mfg. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1941
- Interwoven Stocking Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1944
- Interwoven Stocking Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1943
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.