SWACZYK

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• Kern v. TXO Prod. Corp., 738 F.2d 968 (8th Cir. 1984)
  …dismiss without prejudice are addressed to the sound discretion of the district courts. But “the discretion vested in the court is a judicial and not an arbitrary one ....” International Shoe Co. v. Cool, 154 F. 2d 778, 780 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 329 U.S. 726, 67 S.Ct. 76, 91 L.Ed. 678 (1946). That is, when we say that a decision is discretionary, or that a district court has discretion to grant or deny a motion, we do not mean that the district court may do whatever pleases it. The phrase means instea…
• Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Roberts, 203 F.2d 304 (4th Cir. 1953)
  …, 121 F. 2d 692, 695. The net effect of the redemption was clearly to distribute to taxpayer the corporate earnings just as if a cash dividend had been declared. Kirschenbaum v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 155 F. 2d 23, 170 A.L. R. 1389, certiorari denied 329 U.S. 726, 67 S. Ct. 75, 91 L.Ed. 628; Hyman v. Helver-ing, 63 App.D.C. 221, 71 F. 2d 342, certiorari denied 293 U.S. 570, 55 S.Ct. 100, 79 L.Ed. 669. See, also, Nolan, “The Uncertain Tax Treatment of Stock Redemptions: A Legislative Proposal, 65 Harv.L.Rev.…
• United States v. Tichenor, 403 F.2d 986 (6th Cir. 1968)
  …n.1951). A contrary result was reached, however, in United States v. Chodorski, 240 F. 2d 590 (7th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 950, 77 S.Ct. 861, 1 L.Ed.2d 858 (1957), and in Swaczyk v. United States, 156 F. 2d 17 (1st Cir.1946), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 726, 67 S.Ct. 77, 91 L.Ed. 629 (1946). In the present case there is nothing in the record which permits us to determine whether the appeal board perpetuated the local board’s error of law when it affirmed the latter’s denial of the requested IV-D class…