Hernandez v. Charles Ilfeld Co.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
McDERMOTT, Circuit Judge.
In an involved and somewhat confusing petition for rehearing, appellee asserts that it is entitled to a double deduction for the losses of its subsidiaries because of regulations which were not set out in either brief or discussed in written or oral argument, and the court is chided for “ignoring” such regulations. Counsel for other litigants have volunteered to act as friends of the court, all asserting the legal right to deduct losses a second time, and reminding us that if there is a crevice in the dike by which the actual income of affiliated corporations escapes…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Woolford Realty Co. v. RoseSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Lucas v. Kansas City Structural Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Burnet v. Aluminum Goods Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Burnet v. Riggs Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1932
3Cited by3 opinions
- Landy Towel & Linen Service, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1962
- Commissioner v. Emerson Carey Fibre Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1934
- Landy Towel & Linen Service, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1962