26 U.S.C. § 28
Renumbered § 45C]
[renumbered]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1953–2014 · leading case: United States v. General Shoe Corporation
United States v. General Shoe Corporation (1960)
“rred to as the Government, put in issue by amended answer (1) these market values, (2) whether they were actually contributed to the trust during the taxable years for which deductions were taken, and (3) whether the trust was a qualified trust “exempt from taxation under…”
Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. United States Food & Drug Administration (2001)
“26 U.S.C. § 28 . More importantly, orphan drug designation and approval confers seven years of non-patent marketing exclusivity.”
United States ex rel. Ryan v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2014)
“See 26 U.S.C. § 28 ; see also 21 U.S.C. § 360cc(a).”
McClintock-Trunkey Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1954)
“The statute involved is § 23 (p) (1) (C), Title 26 of the Internal Reve *330 nue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 28 (p)(l)(C), relating to deductions from gross income of contributions of an employer to an exempt profit-sharing trust.”
Fawick Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1965)
“The Supreme Court thwarted this attempt, saying: “The issue before us is whether, under §§ 23 (s) and 122 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, as amended, [ 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 28 (s), 122], a corporation resulting from a merger of 17 separate incorporated businesses, which had…”
International Bedaux Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1953)
“§ 28, 26 U.S.C. § 28 , by formal written consent of the stockholders (by their agent, of course).”
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.