Legal Opinion

FERD. MULHENS, INC. v. Higgins

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided September 1, 1943PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BRIGHT, District Judge.

Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action was commenced one day too late. Plaintiff sues to recover overpayments of manufacturer’s excise taxes which he had paid but had erroneously computed.

Section 3772 of the Internal Revenue Act, 53 Stat. 465, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code § 3772, is the applicable law, and in subdivision (2) provides that no suit or proceeding for the recovery of any internal revenue tax shall be begun “after the expiration of two years from the date of mailing by registered mail by the Commissioner to the taxpayer of a…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. United States v. SherwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. George Moore Ice Cream Co. v. RoseSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  3. United States v. MichelSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  4. Munro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  5. Monroe Cattle Co. v. BeckerSupreme Court of the United States · 1893

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Joint Council Dining Car Employees Local 370 v. Delaware, L. & W. R.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
  2. Rao v. Port of New York AuthorityDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1954
  3. Associated Transport, Inc. v. PuseySuperior Court of Delaware · 1955
  4. Wyker v. WillinghamDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 1944
  5. Yuri Yajima v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1946

10 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