Legal Opinion

Parish-Watson Co. v. Anderson

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided August 1, 1929PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThacher, District Judge

(after stating tbe facts as above). Computing the limitation period as extended by agreement for one year from tbe filing date of tbe tentative return — White, Collector, v. Hood Rubber Co. (C. C. A. 1st, June 25, 1929) 33 F. (2d) 739; Brandon Corp. v. Jones, Collector, (D. C. E. D. S. C., March 30, 1929) 33 F.(2d) 969; opinion of Gilbert, J., in Rasmussen v. Brownfield-Canty Carpet Co., 31 F.(2d) 89 (C. C. A. 9th) — it is apparent that within tbe extended period which by agreement of tbe parties was to expire March 14,1925, notice of deficiency was given to tbe taxpayer pursuant to tbe act…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Rasmussen v. Brownfield-Canty Carpet Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
  2. Brandon Corp. v. JonesDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1929
  3. Insley Mfg. Co. v. ThurmanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1929
  4. Hood Rubber Co. v. WhiteDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1928

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. William C. Atwater & Co. v. BowersCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
  2. Porto Rico Railway, Light & Power Co. v. BuscagliaSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API