ยง
Schoenhut v. Comm'r

10 Cited authorities

  1. Welch v. Helvering

    290 U.S. 111 (1933)   Cited 3,758 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Commissioner's determinations are presumed to be correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving them wrong

  2. Lucas v. American Code Co.

    280 U.S. 445 (1930)   Cited 419 times
    In Lucas v. American Code Co., 280 U.S. 445, 50 S.Ct. 202, 74 L.Ed. 538 (1930) an accrual taxpayer sought to deduct as a loss in 1919 the amount of a judgment for breach of contract it suffered in 1922 and paid in 1923.

  3. U.S. v. White Dental Co.

    274 U.S. 398 (1927)   Cited 296 times
    In United States v. S.S. White Dental Mfg. Co., 274 U.S. 398 (1927), the taxpayer, a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of dental supplies, had organized a German subsidiary.

  4. Burnet v. Houston

    283 U.S. 223 (1931)   Cited 223 times
    In Burnet v. Houston, 283 U.S. 223, 51 S. Ct. 413, 75 L. Ed. 991, the Supreme Court under somewhat similar circumstances declined to allow a deduction, saying that it was as necessary under the statute to prove value as of March 1, 1913, as it was to prove cost and the amount finally received.

  5. Helvering v. Janney

    311 U.S. 189 (1940)   Cited 32 times

    CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 36. Argued November 18, 1940. Decided December 9, 1940. 1. Under ยง 51(b) of the Revenue Act of 1934, when a joint return is made by husband and wife, the tax is computed on their aggregate net income; and capital losses of one spouse may be deducted from capital gains of the other. P. 194. 2. Section 117(d) of this Act did not purport to alter the rule as to the right of the spouses to deductions in their joint return, but merely

  6. Taft v. Helvering

    311 U.S. 195 (1940)   Cited 26 times
    Stating that a joint Federal income tax return is treated as a return of a single taxable unit and taxpayers electing to so file must report their aggregate income upon which tax is computed

  7. Moore v. United States, (1941)

    37 F. Supp. 136 (Fed. Cl. 1941)   Cited 7 times

    No. 44578. March 3, 1941. J.C. Murphy, of Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff. Elizabeth B. Davis, of Washington, D.C., and Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Robert N. Anderson and Fred K. Dyar, both of Washington, D.C., on the brief), for defendant. Before WHALEY, Chief Justice, and LITTLETON, WHITAKER, JONES, and MADDEN, Judges. Action by Mrs. Louise Harris Moore (Mrs. H. Clay Moore) against the United States to recover back alleged overpayment of income tax for calendar year 1932. Petition dismissed

  8. In re Hoffman

    16 F. Supp. 391 (E.D. Pa. 1936)   Cited 11 times
    In Matter of Lewis B. Hoffman (D.C.E.D.Pa., April 27, 1936) 16 F.Supp. 391, the government contended, as the plaintiffs here contend, that the loss upon bank stock was sustained for tax purposes in the year in which the bank was closed and liquidation was begun, rather than in the year in which liquidation might be completed.

  9. Wesch v. Helburn

    5 F. Supp. 581 (W.D. Ky. 1933)   Cited 8 times

    No. 1494. August 12, 1933. Edward Bloomfield, of Louisville, Ky., for plaintiff. Frank A. Ropke, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Louisville, Ky., and E. Riley Campbell, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D.C., for defendant. Action by Elizabeth A. Wesch against E.S. Helburn, Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Kentucky. Judgment for plaintiff. DAWSON, District Judge. The sole question in this case is whether or not the investment of Gustave A. Wesch, the deceased taxpayer, in

  10. Monmouth Plumbing Supply Co. v. United States

    4 F. Supp. 349 (S.D. Fla. 1933)   Cited 2 times

    4 F.Supp. 349 (S.D.Fla. 1933) MONMOUTH PLUMBING SUPPLY CO., Inc., v. UNITED STATES. No. 1587. United States District Court, S.D. Florida Feb. 3, 1933 Douglas D. Felix, of Miami, Fla., for plaintiff. W. P. Hughes, U.S. Dist. Atty., of Jacksonville, Fla., and Raymond F. Brown, Sp. Asst. to U.S. Atty., of Miami, Fla. RITTER, District Judge. This cause comes on for final hearing upon the evidence submitted to the court and the argument of counsel, and the court, being advised in the premises, finds: