The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (in case citations, 1st Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:
Moreof the capital stock of the company. and the canceling of apparent bills payable by the company and of bills receivable by the corporation by the transferring of book accounts of no value as assets, if disclosed to creditors, would undoubtedly have immediately precipitated bankruptcy proceedings.
, The alien, following his detention on the warrant of deportation, petitioned the District Court of Rhode Island for a writ of habeas corpus upon the ground that the hearing before the inspector of immigration was unfair and the charges were not sustained by any competent evidence. U. S. ex rel.
, The two cases involve three main issues: First, whether the profits from handling the 1918 wool clip as licensed dealers under certain government regulations was income received in 1918; Of the wool thus handled by Brown Adams, only a small amount, seven or eight per cent. 53, 62 L. Ed. 211.
, BINGHAM, Circuit Judge. that the losses of the old corporation in 1922 and 1923 were not the losses of the petitioner under section 206 (b) (e) and (f) of the Revenue Act of 1924 (26 USCA § 937 and note), and such losses could not be deducted in the ascertainment of its net income.
55 F.2d 879 (1932), MERRIMAN, v., COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key, Sp. Asst., The expenditure of $2, 028.45, paid by the petitioner in 1926, was taken as a deduction by her in her income tax return for that year as a loss on a transaction entered into for profit.
, BINGHAM, Circuit Judge., The question is whether the dividend which was authorized to be paid by check to be mailed on December 31, 1924, and which was not received until January 2, 1925, was taxable income in 1924, where the taxpayer keeps his books on a cash and calendar year basis.
, On motion before Judge Scammon, the Hawkins verdict was set aside, on the ground that the damage was excessive. This it did, until the trial court gave such construction to count 2 of the declaration as to put Dr. McGee's liability thereunder outside the scope of his insurance policy.
If, however, my said wife, Mary H. Remick, survives me, then the Trustees shall upon my death pay over, transfer, deliver and convey the trust estate absolutely free and discharged of every trust to my said wife, Mary H. Remick., In the case of May v. Heiner, 281 U.S. 238, 50 S. Ct.
, J. Louis Monarch, Sp. Asst. of the gross income., During the years in question the firm of Coffin Tabor, consisting of Sturgis Coffin, Arthur H. Tabor, and one Dolben, collected the rents from the building and paid the same directly to the beneficiaries monthly, according to their interests.
, June 29, 1931., Following these votes, other votes were passed as to coupons Nos. What rate of interest is permitted is governed by local law, Holden v. Trust Co., 100 U.S. 72, 25 L. Ed. 567, and at the place where the bonds are payable, Scotland County v. Hill, 132 U.S. 107, 10 S. Ct.
270, 63 L. Ed. 573, 2 A. L. R. 1601., Under article 4 (referred to in the original opinion simply as giving the trustees broad business powers) they were authorized, generally, to invest and reinvest funds in their control; Wilson Syndicate Trust [v. Commissioner], 14 B. T. A. 508.
123, 125, 73 L. Ed. 410, 66 A. L. R. *1016 397: In its plan and scope the tax is one imposed on transfers at death or made in contemplation of death and is measured by the value at death of the interest which is transferred.) A construction approved in May v. Heiner, 281 U.S. 238, 244, 50 S. Ct.
, There is no more ground for holding in this case that the petitioner's interest in the trust estate created either under the will or by the agreement was an exhaustible asset lessening with each passing year than in the case of a life interest in the income of any trust estate.
v., COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE., WILSON, Circuit Judge., The corporation, Conrad Company, Inc., acquired in exchange for its capital stock tangible property worth $562, 265.20, which, if there had been no other transaction, under section 326 clearly fixed the amount of its invested capital;
50 F.2d 371 (1931), LEACH, v., COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. on the deficiency. 418, 70 L. Ed. 799., There is no merit in the contention that the petitioner should be permitted to deduct from her income tax for 1922 the sum of $3, 982.42 paid by her in that year as interest on the estate tax;
47 F.2d 126 (1931), UNITED STATES, v., GODFREY. Plaintiff began to lose his voice, which condition, together with the cough and pains, continued progressive until he was sent to the hospital at Rutland for treatment for tuberculosis, where he remained up to the time of the trial.
, On February 9, 1927, the commissioner, pursuant to section 280 of the Revenue Act of 1926, mailed a 60-day notice to the Angier Corporation, the transferee of the assets of the Angier Mills, for the tax year 1920, as well as the years 1917 and 1918. The deficiency notice was seasonably given.
, In a brief but cogent opinion by Judge Morton, the tax on the aggregate estate thus computed, was sustained. Her exercise of her general powers of appointment subjected the property to her debts. 126, 73 L. Ed. 405, 63 A. L. R. 388, and Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., 278 U.S. 339, 49 S. Ct.
, It was held in La Porte Heinekamp Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co. (D. C.) 24 F.(2d) 861, that a manufacturer of automobiles under a similar contract with a distributor, and using similar methods, was doing business in a district even to an extent to warrant local service on the manufacturer.
and the question is whether, the facts alleged in the libel being admitted, the court was warranted in adjudging a forfeiture of the liquors under title 2, section 25 (27 USCA § 39), in view of the fact that the seizure was not lawfully made either under a search warrant or otherwise.
