Legal Opinion

Imhoff-Berg Silk Dyeing Co. v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey

Decided September 16, 1930PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RUNYON, District Judge.

This action .was instituted pursuant to the provisions of section 24, par. 20, of the Judicial Code, as amended (28 USCA § 41 (20), to recover the sum of $7,042.68, income and profits taxes assessed and collected for the calendar year 1918, and was tried before the court without a jury.

There is no question presented as to the legality or correctness of the assessment of this sum, and the controversy arises because said sum is alleged to have been erroneously and illegally collected and payment thereof made under protest and threat of dis-traint, after the expiration of…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Campbell v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  2. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  3. Davis v. MillsSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  4. Bowers v. New York & Albany Lighterage Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
  5. National Lead Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1920

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. United States v. Southern Lumber Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1931
  2. Keith v. WoodworthCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1940
  3. Parrott v. McLaughlinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1933
  4. Gillespie v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
  5. National Paper Products Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API