Legal Opinion

Alameda Inv. Co. v. McLaughlin

District Court, N.D. California

Decided May 7, 1928No. 17765PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BOURQUIN, District Judge.

Three corporations (Alameda, Hawley, Pacific) sue the defendant collector to recover income taxes paid by Alameda for the year 1922. Each of them made return, but only Alameda was subject to and paid taxes. In 1924, they joined in an application for refund, on the ground that they were affiliated and entitled to make consolidated return upon which no taxes would have been due, which application was denied. Ho objection to parties has been madé.

Revenue Act 1921, § 240 (Comp. St. § 6336%ss), provides that corporations which are affiliated, within its meaning, may make…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Smietanka v. Indiana Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
  2. Fox v. EdwardsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Adolph Hirsch & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
  2. Ice Service Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
  3. Buttolph v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1928
  4. United States v. CLEVELAND, P. & ER CO.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1930
  5. TUNNEL RR v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932

5 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