Keystone Automobile Club v. Commissioner

12 T.C. 1038
United States Tax Court·Decided June 10, 1949·No. Docket No. 13738·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

OPINION.

Oppee, Judge:

This proceeding is controlled by Chattanooga Automobile Club, 12 T. C. 967, from which it is indistinguishable. No basis exists for limiting the action of respondent under the doctrine of estoppel where appropriate enforcement of the law requires a change of position on his part. Agricultural Securities Corporation, 39 B. T. A. 1103, 1114; affd. (C. C. A., 9th Cir.), 116 Fed. (2d) 800; Stern Bros. & Co. v. Commissioner (C. C. A., 8th Cir.); 108 Fed. (2d) 309; affd., 311 U. S. 617. On the authority of Chattanooga Automobile Club, supra,

Decision will be entered for the respondent.

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

Keystone Automobile Club v. Commissioner, 12 T.C. 1038 (tax 1949).

12 T.C. 1038 (Keystone Automobile Club v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

New Jersey Automobile Club v. United States
181 F. Supp. 259 (Court of Claims, 1960)
Keystone Auto. Club v. Commissioner
12 T.C. 1038 (U.S. Tax Court, 1949)