RICHMOND HOSIERY MILLS, PETITIONER,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT

5th Cir. | 1956-06-05
No. 15875
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and RIVES and JONES, Circuit Judges.
233 F.2d 908 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1956) Negative Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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

Stock dividends distributed prior to March 1, 1913, are includible in equity invested capital under § 718(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.


Facts & Procedural History

The Tax Court determined that stock dividends distributed prior to March 1, 1913, were not includible in equity invested capital. The taxpayer appeale…

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.

This appeal involves claimed deficiencies in excess profit taxes for the years 1942, and 1944-1945. Persisting, despite its reversal in Owensboro Wagon Co. v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 209 F. 2d 617, in adhering to its decision, that stock dividends distributed prior to March 1, 1913, are not includible in equity invested capital under § 718(a) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. Excess Profits Taxes, page 143, the Tax Court sustained the Commissioner’s determination, excluding such stock dividends.

Appealing from that decision, taxpayer is here insisting that, for the reasons set forth in its brief and upon the authority of the Owensboro case, to which may now be added the decision, on April 4, 1956, of the Seventh Circuit, 231 F. 2d 536, affirming Baker Land & Title Co. v. United States, D.C., 126 F.Supp. 561, the Tax Court’s decision was wrong and must be reversed.

We agree with petitioner and with the results reached and the reasons given therefor in the two opinions relied on by it. Because we do, we will not further labor the matter here, but, noting our agreement with those opinions and our disagreement with the Tax Court, we order its judgment reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw