GEORGE LANGSTAFF, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ROBERT H. LUCAS, COLLECTOR, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
After considering carefully the reasons urged against it, we feel satisfied to affirm the judgment (9 F.[2d] 691), and we do so upon the reasoning and conclusions of the District Judge. Although the half interest in the corporate assets which came to Langstaff was within the broad definition of “dividend” in section 201 (a), being Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 6336%b, yet the transaction was the very one specifically provided for in the last sentence of section 201 (e), and the half interest became the proceeds of the sale of Langstaff’s stock in the corporation, instead of a corporate dividend. Only so can the sections be effectively read together.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hellmich v. Isadore N. Hellman, 276 U.S. 233 (U.S. 1928)
-
Acker v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 258 F.2d 568 (6th Cir. 1958)
-
Jemison v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 45 F.2d 4 (5th Cir. 1930)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence