Legal Opinion

Armour & Co. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided March 5, 1958No. 85-57; No. 300-57PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLaramore, Judge

These are actions brought by eight plaintiffs in one suit and nine plaintiffs in another for the refund of transportation taxes. The cases arise on plaintiffs’ and defendant’s motions for summary judgment.

Two questions are present: (1) whether the phrase “the amount paid * * * for the transportation * * * of property” as used in section 3475 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, as amended 26 U. S. C. 3475 (1946 Ed.), includes charges by the carriers for the supplying of ice and salt in the bunkers of refrigeration cars, and (2) whether the period for filing claims for refund of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Eastern Extension, Australasia & China Telegraph Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  2. Swift & Company v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1956

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. S. M. Jones v. The United States. S. M. Jones & Company, Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967
  2. Armour & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1959
  3. Beber v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1958
  4. Chas. Abbate Co. v. JareckiDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1959
  5. Litvak Meat Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1959

2 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