26 U.S.C. § 261
General rule for disallowance of deductions
In computing taxable income no deduction shall in any case be allowed in respect of the items specified in this part.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1929–1992 · leading case: Comm'r v. Idaho Power Co., 418 U.S. 1 (1974).
Comm'r v. Idaho Power Co., 418 U.S. 1 (1974). “…other items of direct cost." Finally, the priority-ordering directive of § 161or for that matter, § 261 of the Code, 26 U. S. C. § 261 [12] requires that the capitalization provision of § 263 (a) take precedence, on the facts here, over § 167 (a). Section 161 provides that…”
Richard A. Grigg & Mary G. Grigg v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 979 F.2d 383 (5th Cir. 1992). “26 U.S.C. §§ 261 -280H. Although taxpayers are allowed to deduct ordinary and necessary expenses “for the management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for the production of income,” 26 U.”
Borgia v. United States, 78 F.2d 550 (9th Cir. 1935). “26 USCA §§ 261, 281, 282, 306, 307; 18 USCA § 88.”
Nat'l Atlas Elevator Co. v. United States, 97 F.2d 940 (8th Cir. 1938). “It was contended that the distillery had become the property of the United States as of the date of the offense on which the forfeiture was based.”
United States v. Various Items of Pers. Prop., 40 F.2d 422 (2d Cir. 1930). “We cannot doubt that in amending, in 1926, section 600(a) (26 USCA § 245), to read as above quoted, Congress intended to tax alcohol diverted to beverage purposes even though the diversion was also a criminal offense under the Prohibition Act. 3. The next contention of…”
C. V. Starr & Co. v. Comm'r, 101 F.2d 611 (4th Cir. 1939). “169 , 26 U.S.C.A. § 261 (a) provides, for the purpose of the income tax imposed by section 13 thereof, 26 U.”
Motlow v. United States, 35 F.2d 90 (8th Cir. 1929). “(26 USCA § 261): “Whenever any person engaged in carrying on the business of a distiller defrauds or attempts to defraud the United States of the tax on the spirits distilled by him, or of any part thereof, he shall forfeit the distillery and distilling apparatus used by him,…”
Norbriga v. United States, 55 F.2d 146 (1st Cir. 1932). “§§ 3257 and 3281 (26 USCA §§ 261, 306), to forfeit a distillery, warehouse, and denaturing plant of the Waterloo Distilling Coirporation on the ground that the corporation had conducted its distilling business upon the premises with intent to defraud, and had defrauded, the…”
Murphy v. United States, 38 F.2d 441 (7th Cir. 1930). “1053 ), the court said: “Did Congress intend to punish such violation of law by imposing the old penalty denounced in section 3257 [26 USCA § 261] or as provided in the new and special provision enacted in the Volstead Act?” After further discussion, it was held that the…”
United States v. Premises At 1707-9 & 1715 St. Marks Avenue, 55 F.2d 271 (E.D.N.Y 1932). “, for alleged violations of sections 261, 281, 2,84, and 306 of title 26 United States Code (26 USCA §§ 261, 281, 284 and 306), which sections read as follows: “§ 261.”
United States v. Wilson, 9 F. Supp. 968 (W.D.N.Y. 1935). “In order to sustain any authority in the agent to execute the warrant, a violation of the National Prohibition Act or some act concerning the enforcement of the Eighteenth Amendment must concur with the violation of the Internal Revenue Law.”
Grigg v. C.I.R. (5th Cir. 1992). “26 U.S.C. §§ 261–280H. Although taxpayers are allowed to deduct ordinary and necessary expenses "for the management, conservat ion, or maintenance of property held for the production of income," 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.