Notes of Decisions
Oak Worsted Mills v. United States, 36 F.2d 529 (Ct. Cl. 1929).
· cites it 5× “) Section 611 (26 USCA § 2611) provides: “If any internal-revenue tax (or any interest, penalty, additional amount, or addition to such tax) was, within the period of limitation properly applicable thereto, assessed prior to June 2,1924, and if a claim in abatement was filed,…”
Goodcell v. Graham, 35 F.2d 586 (9th Cir. 1929).
· cites it 6× “875 , 26 USCA § 2611). The appellees brought an action to recover $9,039.”
Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co. v. United States, 2 F. Supp. 126 (Ct. Cl. 1933).
· cites it 2× “152, an opinion made and published by the general counsel of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, it was held that section 611 of the Revenue Act of 1928 (26 USCA § 2611), was not applicable to the case where a claim for credit of an overpayment had operated to stay the collection of…”
Regla Coal Co. v. Bowers, 37 F.2d 373 (S.D.N.Y. 1929).
· cites it 9× “Case the court decided that “stayed,” in a legal sense, is not interchangeable with “delayed,” and necessarily connotes “some act on the part of the taxpayer whieh would morally or legally tie the hands of the Commissioner and prevent collection of the tax”; and since article…”
Rockland & Rockport Lime Corp. v. Ham, 38 F.2d 239 (D. Me. 1930).
· cites it 3× “The defendant contends that, as to the excess profits taxes involved, they were not paid after the limitation period had expired, and as to the income taxes involved, while conceding that the five-year limitation period had expired before their payment, relies upon section 611…”
Simmons Mfg. Co. v. Routzahn, 62 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1933).
· cites it 2× “Section 607 thereof (26 USCA § 2607) classified as overpayments taxes assessed or paid after the expiration of the period of limitation properly applicable, while section 611 (26 USCA § 2611) made an important exception there *948 to.”
Hartwell Mills v. Rose, 61 F.2d 441 (5th Cir. 1932).
“…[607], relating to payments made after the expiration of the period of limitation on assessment and collection.” (26 USCA § 2611.)”
Wright & Taylor, Inc. v. Lucas, 45 F.2d 75 (6th Cir. 1930).
· cites it 3× “Section 607 (26 USCA § 2607), in harmony with the Bowers Case, provided that any tax paid after the expiration of the applicable limitation period shall be considered an overpayment and refundable if properly claimed, but section 611 (26 USCA § 2611) made an important exception.”
Imhoff-Berg Silk Dyeing Co. v. United States, 43 F.2d 836 (D.N.J. 1930).
· cites it 10× “It is admitted that plaintiff’s suit is timely and properly brought, and that, were it not for the provisions of section 611 of the Revenue Act of 1928 (26 USCA § 2611), the plaintiff’s right to a return of its money would be clear under the terms of section 607 (26 USCA § 2607).”
Parks & Woolson MacH. Co. v. United States, 58 F.2d 868 (Ct. Cl. 1932).
“In that ease recovery was denied under the provisions of section 611 of the 1928 Act (26 USCA § 2611). The credit involved in that ease was not void.”
Savannah Bank & Trust Co. v. United States, 58 F.2d 1068 (Ct. Cl. 1932).
“The record in this case shows that the official schedule rejecting plaintiffs’ elaim for refund was signed and approved by the commissioner on August 9, 1929. This suit was therefore timely instituted.”
— 26 U.S.C. § 2611(2)(D) — 1 case
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.