Legal Opinion

United States v. Longhorn Portland Cement Company

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided April 8, 1964No. 19910PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHEEHY, District Judge.

This, an income tax refund ease, presents the problem of determining the “statutory percentage mining depletion allowance” for a taxpayer who mines a mineral which it owns and processes into a product which it sells. The years involved are 1951, 1952 and 1953.

During all times pertinent hereto Appellee, hereinafter referred to as Longhorn, was engaged in mining limestone, of a type or variety called cement rock, from its quarry adjacent to San Antonio, Texas, and using it to make Portland cement at its cement plant located at the quarry site. Such cement rock has an…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. Cannelton Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
  2. Riddell v. Monolith Portland Cement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. R. A. Riddell, District Director of Internal Revenue, Los Angeles District v. Monolith Portland Cement Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962
  4. United States v. Portland Cement Company of Utah, a Utah CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1963

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. PPG Industries Canada Ltd. v. KreuscherNebraska Supreme Court · 1979
  2. United States v. Portland Cement Company of Utah, a Utah Corporation, Portland Cement Company of Utah, a Utah Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1964
  3. United States v. Light Aggregates, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1965
  4. United States v. Marvin Shurbet Et Ux.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1965
  5. Iowa Limestone Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1966

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