LESLIE R. BEN, DOING BUSINESS AS BEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York rejecting appellant’s claim for certain tax refunds. The issue and the facts are well stated in the opinion of the court below. 139 F.Supp. 883. Although the case is a close one, we cannot say the District Court improperly refused to upset the administrator’s determination that the applicators were “employees” within the statutory scheme. United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704, 67 S.Ct. 1463, 91 L.Ed. 1757; Bartels v. Birmingham, 332 U.S. 126, 67 S.Ct. 1547, 91 L.Ed. 1947; Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Com. Shows v. Higgins, 2 Cir., 189 F. 2d 865; Westover v. Stockholders Pub. Co., 9 Cir., 237 F. 2d 948.
Affirmed
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ill. Tri-Seal Prods., Inc. v. The United States, 353 F.2d 216 (Ct. Cl. 1965)
-
Lifetime Siding, Inc. v. United States, 359 F.2d 657 (2d Cir. 1966)
-
Ben Constr. Corp. v. The United States, 312 F.2d 781 (Ct. Cl. 1963)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (U.S. 1947)
- Bartels v. Birmingham, 332 U.S. 126 (U.S. 1947)
- Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Higgins, 189 F.2d 865 (2d Cir. 1951)
- Westover v. Stockholders Publ'g Co., Inc., 237 F.2d 948 (9th Cir. 1956)