Legal Opinion
Mutual Tel. Co. v. United States
District Court, D. Hawaii
Decided September 28, 1951No. 931PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McLAUGHLIN, District Judge.
The question here presented is whether the Commissioner of Internal Revenue erred in his determination that the taxpayer, under Sections 22(a), 41, and 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 22(a), 41, 42, was required to include in its taxable income for the calendar years 1941 and 1942 the increased installation and “supersedure” charges that it received from its subscribers, following the authorization for such charges by the Public Utilities Commission of the Territory of Hawaii.
The pertinent sections of the Internal Revenue Code are copied in the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- North American Oil Consolidated v. BurnetSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Commissioner v. WilcoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Weiss v. WeinerSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- United States v. LewisSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Helvering v. Midland Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Illinois Power Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1984
- Illinois Power Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1984