26 U.S.C. § 187

Repealed. Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, § 1901(a)(31), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1769]

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 26 CasesGoogle Scholar

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1949–1964 · leading case: Randolph Products Co. v. Manning
Randolph Products Co. v. Manning (1949) ca3 “70 , 26 U.S.C.A. § 187 . 5 Johnston v. Commissioner, 2 Cir.”
Cape Shore Fish Co., Inc. v. The United States (1964) cc “26 U.S.C. § 187 (1952). 11 . See Ringling Bros.”
Schneider v. Kelm (1956) mnd “Plaintiffs contend that their two' wives contributed capital to the business, after having received that capital from plaintiffs as “gifts”, and that the two wives also contributed substantially to the partnership operations by acting as advisors and consultants in the design of…”
United States v. Girgenti (1952) ca3 “70 (1939), 26 U.S.C.A § 187 (partnership returns) is a federal offense punishable under 53 Stat.”
Hanson v. Birmingham (1950) iand “Section 187 of the present Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 187 , provides: “Sec. 187. Partnership returns “Every partnership shall malee a return for each taxable year, stating specifically the items of its gross income and the deductions allowed by this chapter and such…”
George Pappas v. United States of America, Harry Pappas v. United States (1954) ca10 “On April 18, 1952 appellants filed the partnership return required of partners by 26 U.S.C.A. § 187 , but did not include in the return the information required by Schedule I.”
Victor A. Miller and Beatrice A. Miller v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1960) ca10 “4 Since Section 187 of the 1939 Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 187 , provides for the filing of partnership returns and permits the computation of gain and loss generally on the same basis as an individual, the courts have long and consistently held that the partnership is an entity,…”
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Thomas Robinson and Elaine Robinson (1959) ca3 “Code of 1939, § 187, 26 U.S.C.A. § 187 . . Int.Rev.Code of 1939, §§ 181, 182, 26 U.”
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.