26 U.S.C. § 342
Repealed. Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, § 1901(a)(47), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1772]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1937–1939 · leading case: William B. Scaife & Sons Co. v. Driscoll, 94 F.2d 664 (3rd Cir. 1937).
William B. Scaife & Sons Co. v. Driscoll, 94 F.2d 664 (3rd Cir. 1937). “In our opinion, as stated by the learned District Judge, the appellant is seeking to procure the filing of the amended return so that it may be used as a basis of computing the excess profits tax laid under section 106 of the Revenue Act of 1935, 26 U.S.C.A. § 342 . If the…”
Rosoff Tunnel Corp. v. Higgins, 28 F. Supp. 880 (S.D.N.Y. 1938). “” Section 106 of the Revenue Act of 1935, as amended, 26 U.S.C.A. § 342 note, imposes an excess profits tax, and provides in part as follows: (b) “The adjusted declared value shall be determined as provided in section 105 [1358a] as of the close of the preceding income-tax…”
Allied Agents, Inc. v. United States, 26 F. Supp. 98 (Ct. Cl. 1939). “Under the revenue act of 1935, § 106, 26 U.S.C.A. § 342 , the excess-profits tax rates upon the net income of corporations subject to the capital stock tax are 6 per cent on such portion thereof as is in excess of 10 per cent and not in excess of 15 per cent of the declared…”
Wm. B. Scaife & Sons Co. v. Driscoll, 18 F. Supp. 748 (W.D. Pa. 1937). “1733 ( 26 U.S.C.A. § 342 ), and thus getting- a lower tax than as though the computation were made on the basis of the first return.”
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.