Legal Opinion
Bishop v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided December 9, 1931No. 4517PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSparks, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
The facts in this case are uneontroverted, and the sole question presented is whether the deficiencies added to petitioner’s income were authorized by law.
The statutes involved are Revenue Act of 1921, e. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 233, 237:
“See. 210. That * * * there shall be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year upon the net income of every individual a normal tax * * *.
“See. 211. (a) That * * * there shall be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year upon the net income of every individual—
“(1) * * * a surtax * * *.
“See. 212. (a) That in the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Lucas v. EarlSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- In re WrightCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1907
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. FieldCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
- Hall v. BurnetCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1931
- O'Malley-Keyes v. EatonDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Helvering v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Rossmoore v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
- Fordyce v. HelveringCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1935
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. BlairCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1936
- Daugherty v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1933
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.