Notes of Decisions
Mill Ridge Coal Co. v. George D. Patterson, 264 F.2d 713 (5th Cir. 1959).
· cites it 2× “Agreeing with appellee, therefore, that the taxpayer here, as in the Libson case, supra, is not “the taxpayer” within the meaning of 26 U.S.C.A. § 122 (b) (2) (C); and that under the undisputed facts and the findings in this case, the allowance of the deduction is forbidden by…”
Stanton Brewery v. Comm'r, 176 F.2d 573 (2d Cir. 1949).
· cites it 2× “324 , § 1, 26 U.S.C.A. § 122 note. We may pass the point whether such a later statute may control the meaning of this earlier Act now already repealed since we think the intent, if any, revealed by the statute suggests the opposite conclusion.”
Nat'l Forge & Ordnance Co. v. United States, 151 F. Supp. 937 (Ct. Cl. 1957).
· cites it 2× “The next question which the case presents is the proper computation of the excess profits tax for 1944, which section 122(a), (b) and (d) (6), 26 U.S. C.A. § 122(a, b), (d) (6), say must be deducted from the income of the second preceding taxable year before application of the…”
A. C. Willingham v. United States, 289 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1961).
· cites it 2× “We held there “that the taxpayer here, as in the Libson case, supra, is not the ‘taxpayer’ within the meaning of 26 U.S.C.A. § 122 (b) (2) (C).” In the case before us we have, instead of a complete reorientation of business activity, substantially the same kind of business…”
John M. Trent v. Comm'r, 291 F.2d 669 (2d Cir. 1961).
“” Section 122(d) (5) said that in computing such loss, deductions “not attributable to the operation of a trade or business regularly carried on by the taxpayer shall * * * be allowed only to the extent of the amount of the gross income not derived from such trade or business.”
Lloyd U. Noland, Jr. v. Comm'r, 269 F.2d 108 (4th Cir. 1959).
“Salary has been treated as business income within the meaning of § 122 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C.A. § 122 . Batzell v. Commissioner, 4 Cir.”
Leo Elwert v. United States, 231 F.2d 928 (9th Cir. 1956).
“If this were true, the unreported income for 1949 could be wiped out, and, because of the carry-back provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 122 , the amount of taxable income for 1947 and 1948 could be affected.”
Philadelphia Park Amusement Co. v. United States, 126 F. Supp. 184 (Ct. Cl. 1954).
“97 net loss for the year 1946, and taxpayer claimed a net operating loss carryback to 1944 and 1945 under section 122(b) of the Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 122 (b), . On December 15,' 1947, the taxpayer filed a claim for refund of 1944 taxes in the amount of $6,087.”
Maloney v. Spencer, 172 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1949).
“48, and that this loss entitled him to a net operating loss carry-back of this amount to his two last prior fiscal years within § 122 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 122 . The deduction of the 1.”
Lewyt Corp. v. Comm'r, 215 F.2d 518 (2d Cir. 1954).
“§ 23 (s), provided that in computing net income there should be allowed as a deduction (from gross income) the “net operating loss deduction” provided in § 122, 26 U.S.C.A. § 122 . Section 122(a) defines “ ‘net operating loss’ ” as “the excess of the deductions allowed by this…”
26 U.S.C. § 122(b): 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.