Jewel Tea Co. v. United States

S.D. New York

Jewel Tea Co. v. United States

15 F. Supp. 56, 17 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1356, 1936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1143

DecidedApril 22, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 15 F. Supp. 56 (Jewel Tea Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jewel Tea Co. v. United States, 15 F. Supp. 56, 17 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1356, 1936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1143 (S.D.N.Y. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

COXE, District Judge.

The sinking fund provisions of the preferred stock did not create any debtor and creditor relation. Hazel Atlas Glass. Co. v. Van Dyk & Reeves, Inc. (C.C.A.) 8 F.(2d) 716; Commissioner v. O. P. P. Holding Corporation (C.C.A.) 76 F.(2d) 11. United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1, 52 S.Ct. 4, 76 L.Ed. 131, has, therefore, no application. The general rule is that a corporation receives no gain or loss from the purchase of its own stock. Johnson v. Commissioner (C.C.A.) 56 F.(2d) 58, certiorari denied Johnson v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 551, 52 S.Ct. 502, 76 L.Ed. 1287. And on the basis of the facts alleged in the amended complaint, the case is not within the exception recognized in. Commissioner v. S. A. Woods Mach. Co. (C.C.A.) 57 F.(2d) 635, certiorari denied 287 U.S. 613, 53 S.Ct. 15, 77 L.Ed. 532. Neither is the statement in the claim for [57]*57refund that “all of said purchases were part of a plan of acquiring its entire preferred stock issue” overridden by a general allegation that the transaction was “entered into by petitioner for profit and as part of its trade or business.” Dascomb v. McCuen (C.C.A.) 73 F.(2d) 417.

The motion of the defendant to dismiss is granted.

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

COXE, District Judge.

The sinking fund provisions of the preferred stock did not create any debtor and creditor relation. Hazel Atlas Glass. Co. v. Van Dyk & Reeves, Inc. (C.C.A.) 8 F.(2d) 716; Commissioner v. O. P. P. Holding Corporation (C.C.A.) 76 F.(2d) 11. United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1, 52 S.Ct. 4, 76 L.Ed. 131, has, therefore, no application. The general rule is that a corporation receives no gain or loss from the purchase of its own stock. Johnson v. Commissioner (C.C.A.) 56 F.(2d) 58, certiorari denied Johnson v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 551, 52 S.Ct. 502, 76 L.Ed. 1287. And on the basis of the facts alleged in the amended complaint, the case is not within the exception recognized in. Commissioner v. S. A. Woods Mach. Co. (C.C.A.) 57 F.(2d) 635, certiorari denied 287 U.S. 613, 53 S.Ct. 15, 77 L.Ed. 532. Neither is the statement in the claim for [57]*57refund that “all of said purchases were part of a plan of acquiring its entire preferred stock issue” overridden by a general allegation that the transaction was “entered into by petitioner for profit and as part of its trade or business.” Dascomb v. McCuen (C.C.A.) 73 F.(2d) 417.

The motion of the defendant to dismiss is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 F. Supp. 56, 17 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1356, 1936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jewel-tea-co-v-united-states-nysd-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack