GEORGE LANGSTAFF
v.
ROBERT H. LUCAS, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
GEORGE LANGSTAFF
ROBERT H. LUCAS, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
273 U.S. 721
Supreme Court of the United States (1926)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Acker v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 258 F.2d 568 (6th Cir. 1958)…ed to the President for his approval. [U.S.Const. Art. I, §§ 7, 8, clause 1; Amend. XVI; see: Langstaff v. Lucas, D.C.W.D.Ky.1925, 9 F. 2d 691, 692-693, affirmed upon the opinion of the District Court, 6 Cir., 13 F. 2d 1022, certiorari denied, 1926, 273 U.S. 721, 47 S.Ct. 111, 71 L.Ed. 858; Masonite Corp. v. Fly, 5 Cir., 1952, 194 F. 2d 257, 260; Helvering v. Rebsamen Motors, Inc., 8 Cir., 1942, 128 F. 2d 584, 587-588.] Especially is this so where, as in the case at bar, the penalty sought to be imposed by…
-
Auto. Club OF Mich. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 230 F.2d 585 (6th Cir. 1956)…F. 2d 402; Smyth v. California State Automobile Association, 9 Cir., 175 F. 2d 752, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 905, 70 S.Ct. 307, 94 L.Ed. 557. Cf. Langstaff v. Lucas, D.C., 9 F. 2d 691, affirmed per curiam 6 Cir., 13 F. 2d 1022, certiorari denied 273 U.S. 721, 47 S.Ct. 111, 71 L.Ed. 858. That the ruling of July 16, 1945, corrected a mistake of law cannot be disputed. The principal question was the legal significance of the word “club” in Section 101(9) of the Internal Revenue ■Code. Another statutory qu…