§

Gregg Co., Ltd. v. Comm'r

25 B.T.A. 81 (B.T.A. 1932)
Gregg Co., Ltd. v. Comm'r

10 Cited authorities

  1. Burnet v. Sanford Brooks Co.

    282 U.S. 359 (1931)   Cited 339 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Burnet v. Sanford Brooks Co., 282 U.S. 359 (1931), the judgment of the Court of Appeals reflected JUSTICE BLACKMUN'S approach, holding that the amount recovered in the later year was not income in that year but that the taxpayer had to amend its returns for the years of the deductions.

  2. Tuttle v. Chase Home Finance, LLC

    Case No. 2:08-CV-574-DB (D. Utah Oct. 28, 2008)   Cited 7 times
    In Chase v. Tuttle, 55 Conn. 455, 12 A. 874, it was held that the failure on the part of some of the directors, who were out of the state, to receive notice, does not invalidate the action of the majority, forming a legal quorum at such meeting.

  3. Continental Securities Co. v. Belmont

    206 N.Y. 7 (N.Y. 1912)   Cited 105 times
    In Continental Securities Co. v. Belmont, 206 N.Y. 7, 99 N.E. 138, 51 L.R.A., N.S., 112, 113, cited by the court in the American Life case, supra, it was observed that some courts have drawn a distinction between acts that are and those that are not capable of ratification and, where the acts are not capable of being ratified, that is, where the refusal to bring suit on account of such acts by majority stockholders does not preclude a minority stockholder from so doing, no appeal to the stockholders is necessary.

  4. Continental Ins. Co. v. N.Y. H.R.R. Co.

    187 N.Y. 225 (N.Y. 1907)   Cited 35 times
    In Continental Ins. Co. v. New York Harlem Ry. Co., 187 N.Y. 225, 79 N.E. 1026 (1909), a minority shareholder brought a derivative action to annul the Second Supplemental Contract (Finding No. 15).

  5. Gilbert Paper Co. v. Prankard

    204 App. Div. 83 (N.Y. App. Div. 1923)   Cited 10 times

    January 10, 1923. Roger Sherman [ Clarence J. Shearn and Lawrence B. McKelvey of counsel], for the appellant. Thomas O'Connor [ George E. O'Connor and Edgar T. Brackett of counsel], for the respondents. Present — H.T. KELLOGG, Acting P.J., KILEY, VAN KIRK, HINMAN and HASBROUCK, JJ. VAN KIRK, J.: The complaint is here to have it determined whether a cause of action is stated. All the facts alleged, together with all fair inferences therefrom, are admitted, but the conclusions averred, the inferences

  6. Cox v. Leahy

    209 App. Div. 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 1924)   Cited 3 times
    In Cox v. Leahy, 209 App.Div. 313, 204 N.Y.S. 741, unrealized appreciation in land values actually was taken into account in determining whether or not dividends had been improperly paid.

  7. Baker v. Smith

    41 R.I. 17 (R.I. 1918)   Cited 6 times
    In Baker v. Smith, 41 R.I. 17, 102 A. 721 (1918) we stated, "Formal meetings of directors are not necessary where their usual course of business is to act informally."

  8. Martin v. Niagara Falls Paper Manufacturing Co.

    122 N.Y. 165 (N.Y. 1890)   Cited 30 times
    In Martin v. Niagara Falls Paper Mfg. Co. (122 N.Y. 165) it seems to have been held that when the consent was actually given before the execution of the mortgage, and no rights of creditors intervening, there was a sufficient compliance with the statute to make the mortgage valid as against the company and its stockholders.

  9. Remington Son Pulp Paper Co. v. Caswell

    126 App. Div. 142 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)   Cited 4 times

    May 6, 1908. Henry Purcell and Elon R. Brown, for the appellant. Samuel Child and John Conboy, for the respondents. SPRING, J.: The Watertown Paper Company, a domestic corporation, was organized prior to 1874 with a capital stock of $20,000 equally divided between Hiram Remington and his son Edward W. This ownership continued until about the year 1886, when Hiram Remington distributed eighty shares of the stock owned by him equally among four of his daughters, and no further change occurred until

  10. Berryman v. Bankers' Life Insurance Co.

    117 App. Div. 730 (N.Y. App. Div. 1907)   Cited 4 times

    February 15, 1907. George W. Carr, for the plaintiff. D. Cady Herrick, for the defendant. SCOTT, J.: The dividends over which this controversy has arisen may be divided into two classes, those declared and partly paid out of capital, and those declared out of surplus, the payment of which did not, however, impair the capital. The dividend which plaintiff seeks to recover falls within the former class. Nothing is better settled than that dividends should be paid out of surplus and profits, and cannot