DENVER ROCK DRILL MFG. CO.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Helvering v. Stuart, 317 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1942)
  …nt). In this case, as in Lyeth v. Hoey,2 we were determining what interests or rights should be taxed, not what interests or rights had been created, and therefore applied the federal rule. Cf. Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U. S. 103, 110; Palmer v. Bender, 287 U. S. 651, 555; Heiner v. Mellon, 304 U. S. 271, 279; Helvering v. Fuller, 310 U. S. 69, 74. In this view the rules of law to be applied are those of Illinois. That state is the residence of the parties, the place of execution of the instrument, as well as th…
• First Nat. Bank of Kan. City v. United States, 65 F.2d 536 (8th Cir. 1933)
  …mistakes in accounting without giving him the benefit of the sums already received by reason of those mistakes, the provision in question was enacted.” In Denver Rock Drill Mfg. Co. v. United States (Ct. Cl.) 59 F.(2d) 834, 837 (certiorari denied, 287 U. S. 651, 53 S. Ct. 115, 77 L. Ed.-), the court said: “The situa^ tion contemplated by section 284 (e), which will give the taxpayer a right to a refund for prior years, is a decrease of invested capital for the year under audit, which increases the profits…
• United Pocahontas Coal Co. v. United States, 117 F.2d 175 (4th Cir. 1941)
  …uthwestern Oil & Gas Co. v. United States, D.C., 29 F. 2d 404, affirmed, 3 Cir., 34 F. 2d 446, certiorari denied, 280 U.S. 601, 50 S.Ct. 82, 74 L.Ed. 646; and Denver Rock Drill Mfg. Co. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 59 F. 2d 834, 837, certiorari denied, 287 U.S. 651, 53 S.Ct. 115, 77 L.Ed. 563) which, in our opinion, do not support the conclusion stated, although the latter case supports another point in the opinion of the Eighth Circuit, that the section is not applicable unless the “decrease” by the Commissio…