§
Chandler v. Comm'r

7 Cited authorities

  1. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co.

    247 U.S. 179 (1918)   Cited 270 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Congress may tax a reseller only on its gross income, not its gross receipts

  2. Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain

    192 U.S. 397 (1904)   Cited 80 times
    Upholding a tax on the refining of sugar

  3. American Net Twine Co. v. Worthington

    141 U.S. 468 (1891)   Cited 79 times

    ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 55. Argued October 27, 1891. Decided November 9, 1891. In fixing the classification of goods for the payment of duties, the name or designation of the goods is to be understood in its known commercial sense; and their denomination in the market will control their classification without regard to their scientific designation, the material of which they may be made or the use to which they may be applied. Gilling

  4. Benziger v. United States

    192 U.S. 38 (1904)   Cited 31 times

    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 54. Argued December 10, 11, 1903. Decided January 4, 1904. Paragraph 649 of the Tariff Act of 1897, providing for the free entry of "casts of sculpture when specially imported in good faith for the use and by the order of any society incorporated or established solely for religious [or other specified] purposes, should be liberally construed, and any fair doubts as to its true construction should be resolved by the

  5. Matter of Estate of Swift

    137 N.Y. 77 (N.Y. 1893)   Cited 99 times
    In Matter of Estate of Swift, (137 N.Y. 77), Judge GRAY expressed his own doubts as to the true nature of the tax, but declared the judgment of the court to be that it is a tax on the right of succession under a will, or by devolution in case of intestacy; and the doctrine was confirmed and followed in the opinion of Judge BARTLETT, dealing with a legacy given to the United States. The general doctrine must, therefore, be deemed settled in this court unless it has been changed by the act of 1892.

  6. Matter of Curtis

    142 N.Y. 219 (N.Y. 1894)   Cited 34 times
    In Matter of Curtis, 142 N.Y. 219, it was impossible to assess the tax upon the property, because a portion of the property was not subject to the tax, inasmuch as it went primarily to the children of the testatrix, viz., the daughters, and, of course, that portion of the estate was not subject to the tax; therefore, it could not be determined what interest was to be assessed.

  7. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Muenter

    260 F. 837 (9th Cir. 1919)   Cited 1 times

    260 F. 837 (9th Cir. 1919) SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. MUENTER et al. No. 3286. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. October 6, 1919 E. J. Foulds, of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff in error. Annette Abbott Adams, U.S. Atty., and Frank M. Silva, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., for defendants in error. Before GILBERT, ROSS, and HUNT, Circuit Judges. GILBERT, Circuit Judge. The court below sustained a demurrer to the complaint brought by the plaintiff in error to recover certain