Corn Prods. Refining Co. v. Comm'r, 348 U.S. 911 (1955). · Go Syfert
Search
Corn Prods. Refining Co. v. Comm'r, 348 U.S. 911 (1955). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
56 citation events across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. George W. Vardine (ca2, 1962-07-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1909 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1909 1967 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" United States v. George W. Vardine (2×)
2d Cir. · 1962 · signal: see · confidence high
See Clark v. United States, 211 F.2d 100, 103 (8 Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 911 , 75 S.Ct. 289 , 99 L.Ed. 714 (1955); United States v. Link, 202 F.2d 592, 593-594 (3 Cir. 1953); United States v. Bender, 218 F.2d 869, 871-872 (7 Cir. 1955), *64 cert. denied, 349 U.S. 920 , 75 S.Ct. 660 , 99 L.Ed. 1253 (1955); United States v. Lennon, 246 F.2d 24, 27 (2 Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 836 , 78 S.Ct. 60 , 2 L.Ed.2d 48 (1957).
cited Cited "see" Schneider v. Kelm
D. Minnesota · 1956 · signal: see · confidence high
See Clark v. United States, 8 Cir., 1954, 211 F.2d 100 , certiorari denied 348 U.S. 911 , 75 S.Ct. 289 , 99 L.Ed. 714 ; Hargis v. Godwin, 8 Cir., 1955, 221 F.2d 486 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Edgar W. Dickenson, Jr. v. United States
9th Cir. · 1966 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Stayback, 3 Cir., 212 F.2d 313 , cert. denied, 348 U.S. 911 , 75 S.Ct. 289 , 99 L.Ed. 714 . 8 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Petition for Review of Da Silva Pereira v. Murff
S.D.N.Y. · 1958 · signal: see also · confidence low
Belfrage v. Kenton, 2 Cir., 1955, 224 F.2d 803 ; see also Sigurdson v. Landon, 9 Cir., 1954, 215 F.2d 791 , certiorari denied 1955, 348 U.S. 916 , 75 S.Ct. 298 , 99 L.Ed. 718 and need not be dealt with extensively here.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Corn Products Refining Co.
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
No. 457.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 10, 1955.
348 U.S. 911
Samuel A. McCain, Harry J. Rudick and Jay O. Kramer for petitioner., Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Holland, Ellis N. Slack and Harry Marselli for respondent.
Published

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted limited to questions 1 and 2 presented in the petition for certiorari which read as follows:

1. “Are transactions in commodity futures which are not 'true hedges’ capital asset transactions and thus subject to the limitations of Section 117 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, or do the resulting gains and losses from such transactions give rise to ordinary income and ordinary deductions? (1940) (1942)”
2. “Are commodity futures contracts ‘securities’ and thus subject to the ‘wash sales’ provisions of Section 118 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939? (1940) (1942)”