Legal Opinion
Saks v. Higgins
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 27, 1939PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GODDARD, District Judge.
The case came on for hearing on motion of plaintiffs for judgment on the pleadings and the cross motion by the defendant for' judgment in his favor. There is no dispute as to the facts and the sole issue of law presented is the validity of Article' 11, Regulation 80, which was adopted by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue as an interpretation of Section 202(a) of the Revenue Act of 1935, 26 U.S.C.A. § 411 (j). The entire case turns upon the point as to whether or not the regulation is in harmony with the Statute and is a reasonable exercise of the Commissioner’s…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bull v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Manhattan General Equipment Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- New York Trust Co. v. EisnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Koshland v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- United States v. Supplee-Biddle Hardware Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Maass v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. WinslowCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1940
- O'CONNOR v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1948
- Davidson v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1944
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Shamberg's EstateCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.