Bercut-Vandervoort & Co. v. United States

35 Cust. Ct. 278
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bercut-Vandervoort & Co. v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 35 Cust. Ct. 113
United States Customs Court·Decided October 20, 1955·No. No. 59374; protest 192782-K (San Francisco)·Published

Opinion

DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Johnson, Judge:

The above-entitled case was submitted for decision on defendant’s motion to dismiss the protest for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that [279]*279plaintiff had failed to file a claim for refund with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, as provided in section 3772 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U. S. C. § 3772).

The facts and circumstances are identical with those set forth in our decision on the motion to dismiss protest 192781-K (Bercut-Vandervoort & Co., Inc. v. United States, 35 Cust. Ct. 113, C. D. 1730), decided concurrently herewith. For the reasons therein given, the Government’s motion to dismiss the protest herein is denied.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bercut-Vandervoort & Co. v. United States, 35 Cust. Ct. 278 (cusc 1955).

35 Cust. Ct. 278 (Bercut-Vandervoort & Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bercut-Vandervoort & Co. v. United States
35 Cust. Ct. 113 (U.S. Customs Court, 1955)