PACIFIC INS. CO., LIMITED,
v.
UNITED STATES

9th Cir. | 1951-03-16
No. 12686
188 F.2d 571 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1951)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that an isolated excerpt of legislative history is not entitled to consideration in determining legislative intent and does not indicate the claimed intent.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellants sought reversal of a prior dismissal based on newly discovered legislative history concerning § 204 of the Internal Revenue Code. The new e…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The Court below, upon the authority of our decision in Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 89 F. 2d 186, which involved the same question posed in the instant cause, dismissed the complaint. D.C., 90 F.Supp. 328.

Because of newly discovered facts concerning the legislative history of § 204 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 204, alleged not to have been before us in Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, supra, and which were considered in New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co. v. Commissioner of I. R., 2 T.C. 708, affirmed 1 Cir., 146 F. 2d 697, and in United States v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 4 Cir., 177 F. 2d 805, decided contra to our Pacific Employers case, appellants ask us to reverse the District Court and our own Pacific Employers case.

The new legislative history referred to is an isolated excerpt from a statement made by a witness before the congressional committee considering the legislation. As such, in our opinion, it is not entitled to consideration in determining legislative intent. Nor, in substance, does it indicate the intent claimed for it.

Consequently we reaffirm our decision in Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Commissioner of I.R., supra and affirm the judgment


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw