KEOGH

v.

NEELY, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Citator

Cited By

• Atl. City Elec. Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 288 U.S. 152 (U.S. 1933)
  …e is- not concerned with a failure to exercise existing rights, but with what is deemed to be a more certain and adequate test of a unitary enterprise. According to this test, petitioner failed to show affiliation. Burnet v. Howes Brothers Hide Co., 284 U. S. 583, 584. Judgment affirmed. Article 631 of Regulations No. 45 is as foEows: “Affiliated corporations.—The provision of the statute requiring affiliated corporations to file consolidated returns is based upon the principle of levying the tax accordin…
• Reams v. Vrooman-Fehn Printing Co., 140 F.2d 237 (6th Cir. 1944)
  …pered in the collection of its revenue. No independent equity jurisdiction appearing, the statute applies, even where the collection or assessment of the tax is unwarranted. Graham v. Dupont, 262 U.S. 234, 43 S.Ct. 567, 67 L.Ed. 965; Keogh v. Neely, 284 U.S. 583, 52 S.Ct. 39, 76 L.Ed. 504. Un less there is a clear showing that a taxpayer will suffer a wrong without any other remedy, neither the validity or accuracy, nor the constitutionality of a tax may be tested in an action brought to restrain its collec…
• Ground Gripper Shoe Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 62 F.2d 654 (1st Cir. 1933)
  …e second. It means absolute power in one corporation to control substantially all the stock of the other. Howes Bros. Hide Co. et al. v. Commissioner, 49 F.(2d) 878 (C. C. A. 1), was reversed in Burnet, Commissioner, v. Howes Bros. Hide Co. et al., 284 U. S. 583, 52 S. Ct. 126, 76 L. Ed. 505, and is no longer law. Applying these views of the law to the facts before us: Nearly half the voting stock of the Stores Co. was owned by Dom. Over this stoek the Shoe Co. had no control whatever. It had no control ov…