STROTHER
v.
BURNET, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
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.
A stockholder in Bankers Pocahontas Coal Co. received dividends that included distributions of royalty payments, which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined were taxable income. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' ruling that such dividend distributions were taxable, controlling its decision by the companion case of Bankers Pocahontas Coal Co. v. Burnet decided the same day.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Stone delivered the opinion of the Court.
The decision in this case, which is here on certiorari, turns on that in Bankers Pocahontas Coal Co. v. Burnet, just decided, ante, p. 308.
Petitioner, a stockholder in the Bankers Pocahontas Coal Co., received dividends upon his stock which were, to some extent, a distribution of the royalty payments received by the corporation and involved in its suit against the Commissioner. The ruling of the Commissioner in this case, that the amounts so distributed from royalties were taxable income, was upheld by the Board of Tax Appeals, 18 B. T. A. 901, and by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 55 F. (2d) 626, which remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings, to enable the petitioner to offer additional testimony having a bearing on the correct computation of the deficiency, in accordance with the opinion of the court. The parties stipulate that the decision of this case shall be controlled by that of Bankers Pocahontas Coal Co. v. Burnet, and the judgment below is accordingly
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (35 total)
-
Philadelphia Coke Co. v. Bowles, 139 F.2d 349 (Emer. Ct. App. 1943)…ng him authority to issue an overall price regulation has met with Congressional acceptance and approval. Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. United States, 1933, 288 U.S. 294, 313, 53 S.Ct. 350, 77 L.Ed. 796; Costanzo v. Tillinghast, 1932, 287 U.S. 341, 345, 53 S.Ct. 152, 77 L.Ed. 350. What has been said disposes of the complainants’ contention that the General Maximum Price Regulation should not be applied to the prices of their coke oven gas for the reason that those prices have not risen or threatened to rise to…
-
Sunset Scavenger Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 84 F.2d 453 (9th Cir. 1936)…v. United States, 252 U.S. 140, 146, 40 S.Ct. 237, 64 L.Ed. 496; Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101, 116, 51 S.Ct. 58, 75 L.Ed. 239; McCaughn v. Hershey Chocolate Co., 283 U.S. 488, 492, 51 S.Ct. 510, 75 L.Ed. 1183; Costanzo v. Tillinghast, 287 U.S. 341, 53 S.Ct. 152, 77 L.Ed. 350), unless, perhaps, the language of the act is unambiguous and the regulation clearly inconsistent with it.” See, also, Williams v. Burnet, 61 App.D.C. 181, 59 F.(2d) 357; Simmons Co. v. Commissioner (C.C.A.1) 33 F.(2d) 75. In the inst…
-
Walker v. United States, 83 F.2d 103 (8th Cir. 1936)…ns” (Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294, 315, 53 S.Ct. 350, 358, 77 L.Ed. 796); that it would be given “great weight, even [*107] if we doubted the correctness of the ruling’'’ (Costauzo v. Tillinghast, 287 U.S. 341, 345, 53 S.Ct. 152, 154, 77 L.Ed. 350); that it will not be “disturbed except for reasons of weight” (McCaughn v. Hershey Chocolale Co., 283 U.S. 488, 492, 51 S.Ct. 510, 512, 75 L.Ed. 1183); that “were the matter less clear” the court “should be constrained” to follow…
Previewing 3 of 35 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Strother v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 55 F.2d 626 (4th Cir. 1932)