Bryant Paper Co. v. Holden

Sixth Circuit

Bryant Paper Co. v. Holden

65 F.2d 1012, 2 C.B. 261, 12 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 911, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 3247, 1933 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9376

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 16, 1933

DocketNo. 6015

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 65 F.2d 1012 (Bryant Paper Co. v. Holden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bryant Paper Co. v. Holden, 65 F.2d 1012, 2 C.B. 261, 12 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 911, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 3247, 1933 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9376 (6th Cir. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

HICKS, Circuit Judge.

The petition is denied. We deal here only with point IV thereof, which is that the opinion is contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the eases of United States v. Factors & Finance Co., 288 U. S. 89, 53 S. Ct. 287, 77 L. Ed. 633, and United States v. Memphis Oil Co., 288 U. S. 62, 53 S. Ct. 278, 77 L. Ed. 619, both decided January 9, 1933. We cannot yield to this insistence. In each of these cases a general timely, claim for refund was followed by a specific amendment relative thereto and explanatory thereof tendered after the expiration of the statutory period. Such is not this ease. Here there was a definite, specific, and timely claim for' refund for depreciation upon buildings and machinery and for losses upon certain accounts. After the statute of limitation had run, plaintiff sought to file a refund claim based upon an allowance by the Commissioner of depreciation on the Nashwaak contract. The claim filed after the expiration of the statutory period was a complete departure from the timely claim and bore no relation (hereto. The ease should therefore be aligned with the case of United States v. Henry Prentiss & Co., Inc., 288 U. S. 73, 53 S. Ct. 283, 77 L. Ed. 626, also decided by the Supreme Court on January 9, 1933, rather than with the eases relied on in the petition to rehear..

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

HICKS, Circuit Judge.

The petition is denied. We deal here only with point IV thereof, which is that the opinion is contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the eases of United States v. Factors & Finance Co., 288 U. S. 89, 53 S. Ct. 287, 77 L. Ed. 633, and United States v. Memphis Oil Co., 288 U. S. 62, 53 S. Ct. 278, 77 L. Ed. 619, both decided January 9, 1933. We cannot yield to this insistence. In each of these cases a general timely, claim for refund was followed by a specific amendment relative thereto and explanatory thereof tendered after the expiration of the statutory period. Such is not this ease. Here there was a definite, specific, and timely claim for' refund for depreciation upon buildings and machinery and for losses upon certain accounts. After the statute of limitation had run, plaintiff sought to file a refund claim based upon an allowance by the Commissioner of depreciation on the Nashwaak contract. The claim filed after the expiration of the statutory period was a complete departure from the timely claim and bore no relation (hereto. The ease should therefore be aligned with the case of United States v. Henry Prentiss & Co., Inc., 288 U. S. 73, 53 S. Ct. 283, 77 L. Ed. 626, also decided by the Supreme Court on January 9, 1933, rather than with the eases relied on in the petition to rehear..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 F.2d 1012, 2 C.B. 261, 12 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 911, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 3247, 1933 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-paper-co-v-holden-ca6-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack