Legal Opinion
Groman v. Commissioner
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided November 8, 1937No. 21PublishedCited by 127 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Roberts
This case involves the meaning and scope of the phrase “a party to a reorganization” as used in § 112 of the Revenue Act of 1928.
January 29, 1929, the petitioner, and all other shareholders of Metals Refining Company, an Indiana corporation, hereinafter designated Indiana, entered into a contract with the Glidden Company, an Ohio corporation, reciting that the shareholders of Indiana were desirous of merging and consolidating the properties of their company with Glidden and with a corporation Glidden was to organize under the laws of Ohio, which corporation we shall call Ohio. The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pinellas Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Helvering v. Minnesota Tea Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- John A. Nelson Co. v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Helvering v. WattsSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- G. & K. Manufacturing Co. v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
3Cited by127 opinions
- Burgess v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. BarnetCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2013
- Potash Co. of America v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1954
- Schuh Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1938
- American Potash & Chemical Corporation v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1968
122 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.