Commissioner v. Hughes Tool Co.

Fifth Circuit

Commissioner v. Hughes Tool Co.

160 F.2d 540, 35 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1009, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 3411

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 14, 1947

DocketNo. 11659

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 160 F.2d 540 (Commissioner v. Hughes Tool Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commissioner v. Hughes Tool Co., 160 F.2d 540, 35 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1009, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 3411 (5th Cir. 1947).

Pincite

Opinions

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

When this case was here before, it was held that the taxpayer was entitled to the credits claimed under Section 26(c), 26 U.S. C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 26(c). The dissenting judge was of opinion that Section 26(c) provided an exemption “such as must be strictly construed against the taxpayer claiming the benefits thereof.” He thought that a surviving corporation should not also receive “special tax benefits conferred upon the extinguished corporation by Section 26(c) (1).” Hughes Tool Co. v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 147 F.2d 967. Certiorari was not applied for, and the judgment of the court became final.

The majority of the court as now constituted does not agree with the holdings of the original opinion, but since that judgment became a final one, we are not now at liberty to reopen the case and redetermine the very issues previously decided,¹ especially since the Supreme Court may now grant certiorari if it sees fit.

The Tax Court redetermined taxpayer’s liability in strict accordance with this court’s opinion and mandate and we must, therefore, concur in the affirmance of its decision.

Affirmed.

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

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

When this case was here before, it was held that the taxpayer was entitled to the credits claimed under Section 26(c), 26 U.S. C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 26(c). The dissenting judge was of opinion that Section 26(c) provided an exemption “such as must be strictly construed against the taxpayer claiming the benefits thereof.” He thought that a surviving corporation should not also receive “special tax benefits conferred upon the extinguished corporation by Section 26(c) (1).” Hughes Tool Co. v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 147 F.2d 967. Certiorari was not applied for, and the judgment of the court became final.

The majority of the court as now constituted does not agree with the holdings of the original opinion, but since that judgment became a final one, we are not now at liberty to reopen the case and redetermine the very issues previously decided,¹ especially since the Supreme Court may now grant certiorari if it sees fit.

The Tax Court redetermined taxpayer’s liability in strict accordance with this court’s opinion and mandate and we must, therefore, concur in the affirmance of its decision.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 F.2d 540, 35 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1009, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 3411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioner-v-hughes-tool-co-ca5-1947.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack