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:
MoreJudge Hale overruled the plea in bar, without opinion. 519, 68 L. Ed. 989, the defendant was indicted in the district of North Dakota for using the mails in a scheme to defraud by causing a letter mailed by him in Iowa to be delivered to the addressee in North Dakota.
v., UNITED STATES of America, Defendant, Appellee., Lawrence S. Apsey, of Boston, Mass., for appellant., J. Duke Smith, Sp. Asst., Before WILSON and MORTON, Circuit Judges, and McLELLAN, District Judge., For the reasons set forth in the opinion of the District Court, Brewster, J., 4 F. Supp.
, We do not think the rulings of the Massachusetts court in the cases above referred to estop Marsch from presenting his objection in this action to the allowance of the claim of the Centmont Corporation., The issue of its capital stock to the Central Vermont was not actually authorized until 1916.
, Carlton Fox, Sp. Asst. That case presented a situation not dissimilar to the present one, and it was held that the taxpayer's claim of actual depreciation in the years in question must prevail over the conventional depreciation allowed by the Commissioner and approved by the Board of Tax Appeals.
that Crawford was the identical person named in the warrant; 188, 65 L. Ed. 399), and held that such question, although it involved matters of law as well as of fact, was for the determination of the trial court, not to be reviewed on habeas corpus., Andrews v. Swartz, 156 U.S. 272, 15 S. Ct.
67 F.2d 601 (1933), MORAN, v., COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE., For a number of years before 1928 Mr. Moran did not present some of his certificates and collected no interest on them. Casey v. Galli, 94 U.S. 673, 680, 24 L. Ed. 168; Hartwell Mills v. Rose, 61 F.(2d) 441 (C. C. A. 5).
Huset v. J. I. Case Machine Co. (C. C. A.) 120 F. 865, 61 L. R. A. 303, and cases cited; 476, 75 L. Ed. 1112, 83 A. L. R. 1168, and cases cited. Co., 279 Mass. 325, 181 N.E. That rule was stated by Mr. Justice Van Devanter in San Juan Light Transit Co. v. Requena, 224 U.S. 89, 98, 52 S. Ct.
The part of the store occupied by the copartners and later by the corporation, A. E. Little Company, was in outward appearance a part of the general store of Arnold Constable Company, and was at all times accessible to the manager of the Arnold Constable Company. 898, 10 A. L. R. 649.
The tax was paid in that year and was deducted by the trustee, Junius Beebe, in determining the net income of the estate for that year. Junius Beebe had been discharged as executor before the tax was, or could be, assessed;
There is nothing in his certificate to indicate that the conferences had anything to do with any publication except the first, and by the express terms of the order, the art work, editorials, and copy of each issue must receive the approval of the appellant before it went to press.
Mary Newbold Hale., In James v. Gray, 131 F. 401, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 321, Tucker v. Curtin, 148 F. 929, this court held that in the administration of the bankruptcy act it was not bound by the decisions of the local courts in relation to transfers of property between husband and wife;
and that, in this case, as the amount of war-profits and excess-profits tax thus imposed would be $495, 833.77, that is the amount that, by sections 230 and 236 of the Revenue Act, should be deducted as a credit from the net income of the company in ascertaining its normal income tax.
After having been paid substantial sums as compensation by the Carroll Company, he filed this libel against the United States, as owner of the vessel, under the Suits in Admiralty Act (46 USCA ยงยง 741-752), claiming that his injuries were caused by the negligence of the vessel or her owner.
As Kaplan named himself trustee, the large discretion given in the trust instrument to the trustee as to the accumulation and payment of income is attributable to him personally. There was no personal liability on the part of the Mills or Finkel to Kaplan, and no provision for interest.
65 F.2d 940 (1933), CROMWELL, v., SLANEY., WILSON, Circuit Judge., In the case now before this court, no instructions were given at all on the issues covered by the requested instructions above referred to, and, of course, no exceptions could be taken to the charge itself on these points.
, J. Louis Monarch, Sp. Asst., The petitioner, however, after the passage of the 1918 act, continued to compute the net income of the Connecticut company, and paid its tax, which was accepted, on the basis of the calendar year for all the years from 1917 up to and including 1926.
, The question, therefore, reduces itself to this: Was the Fiske and Hammond trust, because of the broad powers vested in the trustees by the declaration of trust, an association within the meaning of section 2 (a) (2), even though they did not exercise those powers by engaging in business
v. United States (D. C.) 42 F.(2d) 257;, While at the time of the testator's death there was sufficient income from the trust fund to pay all the annuities, and during the years here involved the annuities were in fact paid out of the income, the income fell off appreciably, even in 1927.
(See arts. It is certain that, in that case, the court did not regard the power there exercised by Congress as contravening the Fifth Amendment simply because the property and its income upon which the tax was imposed might also be subjected to a tax in Mexico; 59, 74 L. Ed. 180, 67 A. L. R. 386.
66 F.2d 434 (1933), CONTINENTAL PRODUCTS CO., v., COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE., MORTON, Circuit Judge. Casey v. Galli, 94 U.S. 673, 680, 24 L. Ed. 168; This section provides for so-called jeopardy assessments;, The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed on all points.
