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:
Morein Commissioner v. Brandegee, 1941, 123 F.2d 58, 62, we held the exclusion *992 to be applicable to a gift in trust of an immediate life interest in income. These rights were limited to commence at some future time, conditional upon the exercise by the trustee of his discretionary powers.
132 F.2d 243 (1942), DENHOLM McKAY CO., v., COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. Memphis v. Brown, 1876, 94 U.S. 715, 24 L. Ed. 244;, Obviously the mere filing of the untimely motion for reconsideration did not extend the time allowed for filing a petition for court review. Finality of decisions.
, As appears above the statute proscribes the act of promising money to any person acting for or on behalf of the United States in any official function with intent to influence that person's decision upon any matter which may by law be brought before him in his official capacity.
The balance sheet of the partnership, as of *167 the date of Mr. Nutter's death, indicates the interests of the partners in the firm assets by reference to accounts described as follows: Capital Account, $12, 375, Plant Account, $8, 932.44, and Undistributed Profits, $73, 634.50.
131 F.2d 966 (1942), COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, v., BOYLSTON MARKET ASS'N. The taxpayer has since 1915 deducted each year as insurance expenses the amount of insurance premiums applicable to carrying insurance for that year regardless of the year in which the premium was actually paid.
, WOODBURY, Circuit Judge. In the judgment appealed from the court below awarded the above sum of money to the defendant, Casino de Puerto Rico and decreed that the other defendant, the People of Puerto Rico *221 have no compensable property interest in the premises condemned.
So, the plaintiff's trade-mark having been registered, the district court, even if there were not in this *852 case diversity of citizenship and the requisite amount in controversy, would not need to pass upon the validity of the plaintiff's registrations in order to preserve its jurisdiction.
[2], In 1924 Congress expressly enacted the earlier Treasury practice of treating revocable trusts as an exception to the general provisions applicable to the taxation of income of trust estates.In computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions:, * * * * * *, (k) Depreciation.
shares of preferred stock. 672: A stock dividend is a conversion of surplus or undivided profits into capital stock, which is distributed to stockholders in lieu of a cash dividend. whereas in Case (1) the accumulated earnings remain intact, available for future dividend distributions.
There is no evidence before us that the officers in question were underpaid for the previous years and that the salaries which they received in the taxable years included compensation for past services rendered to the corporation., 101 F.2d 391, 393; 549, 84 L. Ed. 751, and cases cited.
326, 41 L. Ed. 715, indicated that the limitation imposed upon the federal government by the Second Amendment was not absolute and this dictum received the sanction of the court in the recent case of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 182, 59 S. Ct.
page 56, 84 L. Ed. 20) as providing a unified scheme of taxation of gifts whether made inter vivos or at death., [5] The settlor of a trust remains subject to the income tax on the property transferred where he vests a power of revocation solely in some third person who has no adverse interest.
128 F.2d 618 (1942), COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, v., STATE STREET TRUST CO. et al.:, The so-called agreement between the husband and wife did not in any way deprive the court of its power and jurisdiction to alter its former decree providing for the amount of alimony to be paid.
If we were disposed to place our decision upon this ground all of the employees would be covered because of the fact that segregation of employees and facilities in the transportation of sugar cane from the several farms and joint farms under these facts is impossible., 113 F.2d 52.
that the partnership engaged in the business of filling orders for wool top futures transactions received from customers by off-setting such orders against orders of other customers on numerous occasions in violation of the Act and the Regulations pursuant thereto; 13 F.2d 138. 206, 83 L. Ed. 126;
That this court order a full account to be rendered to plaintiff as successor in interest to the said Sarah C. Shapley, by the defendants Stevens, MacKusick and Green, of all real and personal property received by them in their respective capacities; 10, 54 L. Ed. 80; and for general relief.
, 1936, 82 F.2d 157, certiorari denied 299 U.S. 552, 57 S. Ct., It does not matter that the power retained by Terhune could be exercised only in conjunction with the other trustees and with certain of the persons beneficially interested in the trust estate. 66, 80 L. Ed. 80, was a peculiar case.
, On the basis of the foregoing, the court permanently enjoined the two defendants from further infringement, gave judgment against Larkin for his profits of $7, 236.50, together with costs, including $1, 500 for attorney's fee, and gave judgment against Colonial Press for $250 and costs.
The Commissioner determined that this difference of $102, 871.16 as unclaimed amount of deposits made in the distant past by inactive customers, credited to surplus in 1935 constituted taxable income during that year, and his determination was sustained by the Board of Tax Appeals., 101 F.2d 44.
127 F.2d 880 (1942), UNITED STATES, v., MASSACHUSETTS MUT. The insured not having exercised the power to surrender the policy and thus cut out the interest of the beneficiary, the insurance company does not now owe the insured the cash surrender value. But that is not the present case.
