Wilson Chemical Co. v. United States
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
FREEDMAN, District Judge.
This is a suit for refund of excise taxes. The Government claims that the jewelry involved was “sold at retail” and therefore was subject to the excise tax imposed by § 2400 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and § 4001 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
The facts have been stipulated by the parties and each side has moved for summary judgment.
Plaintiff manufactures a salve. It recruits children to sell the product by advertisements m children’s publications. Plaintiff retained no control over the manner in which the children sold the salve and disclaimed any…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Roland Electrical Co. v. WallingSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Nathan Gellman, Burt Horwitz and Peter Podany, Co-Partners, D/B/A Gellman Brothers v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1956
- Louis, Ned E. And Basil A. Torti, Doing Business as Wisconsin De Luxe Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1957
- United Profit Sharing Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1930
- Worrell's Limited, Doing Business as R. D. Worrell Jewelry Co. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1962
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Appalachian Voices, et al. v. Tennessee Valley AuthorityDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2025
- Appalachian Voices, et al. v. Tennessee Valley AuthorityDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2025