Forrest L. Moe and Edith B. Moe v. Hugh H. Earle, Former Collector of Internal Revenue at Portland, Oregon

Ninth Circuit

Forrest L. Moe and Edith B. Moe v. Hugh H. Earle, Former Collector of Internal Revenue at Portland, Oregon

226 F.2d 583

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 28, 1955

Docket14623

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 226 F.2d 583 (Forrest L. Moe and Edith B. Moe v. Hugh H. Earle, Former Collector of Internal Revenue at Portland, Oregon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Forrest L. Moe and Edith B. Moe v. Hugh H. Earle, Former Collector of Internal Revenue at Portland, Oregon, 226 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal raises complicated questions of income taxation in regard to the withholding of a portion of the proceeds derived from the handling and marketing of apples by a cooperative organization. The appeal is from a judgment of the district court by which the court denied to taxpayer a refund of amounts paid under protest.

The judgment is affirmed without a reasoned opinion because we adhere to the general principles expressed in our opinion in the case of Caswell’s Estate v. C. I. R., 1954, 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 693. See also C. I. R. v. Carpenter, 5 Cir., 1955, 219 F.2d 635.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal raises complicated questions of income taxation in regard to the withholding of a portion of the proceeds derived from the handling and marketing of apples by a cooperative organization. The appeal is from a judgment of the district court by which the court denied to taxpayer a refund of amounts paid under protest.

The judgment is affirmed without a reasoned opinion because we adhere to the general principles expressed in our opinion in the case of Caswell’s Estate v. C. I. R., 1954, 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 693. See also C. I. R. v. Carpenter, 5 Cir., 1955, 219 F.2d 635.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 F.2d 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forrest-l-moe-and-edith-b-moe-v-hugh-h-earle-former-collector-of-ca9-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack