Bobrow Bros. v. Commissioner

Third Circuit

Bobrow Bros. v. Commissioner

135 F.2d 209, 30 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1416, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3249

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedApril 23, 1943

DocketNo. 8145

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 135 F.2d 209 (Bobrow Bros. v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bobrow Bros. v. Commissioner, 135 F.2d 209, 30 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1416, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3249 (3d Cir. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons set forth in the memorandum opinion of the Board of Tax Appeals the decision of the Board upon the right of the petitioner to deduct as taxes certain import duties in computing its income tax for the year 1936 is affirmed. The decision, however, includes an adjudication of the petitioner’s liability for undistributed profits tax for the same year which may be affected by the provisions of Section 501(a) (3) of the Revenue Act of 1942, 26 U.S.C. A. Int.Rev.Acts. Accordingly upon the joint motion of the petitioner and the respondent the decision of the Board is vacated and the cause is remanded to the Tax Court of the United States for the determination by it of the application and effect, if any, of the provisions of Section 501 (a) (3) of the Revenue Act of 1942 upon the liability of the petitioner for undistributed profits tax for the year 1936.

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

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons set forth in the memorandum opinion of the Board of Tax Appeals the decision of the Board upon the right of the petitioner to deduct as taxes certain import duties in computing its income tax for the year 1936 is affirmed. The decision, however, includes an adjudication of the petitioner’s liability for undistributed profits tax for the same year which may be affected by the provisions of Section 501(a) (3) of the Revenue Act of 1942, 26 U.S.C. A. Int.Rev.Acts. Accordingly upon the joint motion of the petitioner and the respondent the decision of the Board is vacated and the cause is remanded to the Tax Court of the United States for the determination by it of the application and effect, if any, of the provisions of Section 501 (a) (3) of the Revenue Act of 1942 upon the liability of the petitioner for undistributed profits tax for the year 1936.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 F.2d 209, 30 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1416, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bobrow-bros-v-commissioner-ca3-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack