Connell v. State Tax Commission

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Connell v. State Tax Commission

267 A.D. 923, 46 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5535

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 8, 1944

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 A.D. 923 (Connell v. State Tax Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Connell v. State Tax Commission, 267 A.D. 923, 46 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Relator, a general agent, for the city of New York, Long Island and Westchester County, of the Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company of Philadelphia, asserts that an unincorporated business tax (Tax Law, art. 16-A) should not be assessed against him. Substantially the same question was determined in People ex rel. Luther v. State Tax Commission (265 App. Div. 976, affd. 291 N. Y. 691) adversely to relator’s contention.' In the Luther case exemption was claimed upon the ground that the relators were fiduciaries. Here the defense is that Connell is an employee of the insurance company. Determination confirmed, without costs. Hill, P. J., Bliss, Heffernan and Sehenek, JJ., . ..ncur. [See post, p. 1006.]

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

Relator, a general agent, for the city of New York, Long Island and Westchester County, of the Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company of Philadelphia, asserts that an unincorporated business tax (Tax Law, art. 16-A) should not be assessed against him. Substantially the same question was determined in People ex rel. Luther v. State Tax Commission (265 App. Div. 976, affd. 291 N. Y. 691) adversely to relator’s contention.' In the Luther case exemption was claimed upon the ground that the relators were fiduciaries. Here the defense is that Connell is an employee of the insurance company. Determination confirmed, without costs. Hill, P. J., Bliss, Heffernan and Sehenek, JJ., . ..ncur. [See post, p. 1006.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D. 923, 46 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connell-v-state-tax-commission-nyappdiv-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack