Legal Opinion · Dissent

Insular Sugar Refining Corp. v. Commissioner

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided June 11, 1945No. 191Published

1DissentHincks, District Judge

Under Sec. 501(b) (3) of the Revenue Act of 1936, 49 Stat. 1648, 26 U.S.C.A. Int. Rev. Acts, page 944, the appellant, Insular, was exempt from the so-called windfall tax (tax on unjust enrichment) imposed by said act, Sec. 501(a), if under any statute it "would have been entitled to a refund from the United States of the Federal excise tax * * * otherwise than as an erroneous or illegal collection * * The use of the past subjunctive “would have been entitled” clearly imports a contrary to fact condition which, since not expressed, must be implied. And plainly the condition to be implied is in…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Cudahy Bros. v. La BuddeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API