Langstaff v. Lucas

13 F.2d 1022, 1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 188, 5 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 6125, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3722
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedJune 30, 1926
Docket4582
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 F.2d 1022 (Langstaff v. Lucas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Langstaff v. Lucas, 13 F.2d 1022, 1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 188, 5 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 6125, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3722 (6th Cir. 1926).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After considering carefully the reasons urged against it, we feel satisfied to affirm the judgment (9 F.[2d] 691), and we do so upon the reasoning and conclusions of the District Judge. Although the half interest in the corporate assets which came to Langstaff was within the broad definition of “dividend” in section 201 (a), being Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 6336%b, yet the transaction was the very one specifically provided for in the last sentence of section 201 (e), and the half interest became the proceeds of the sale of Langstaff’s stock in the corporation, instead of a corporate dividend. Only so can the sections be effectively read together.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Jemison v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
45 F.2d 4 (Fifth Circuit, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 F.2d 1022, 1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 188, 5 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 6125, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langstaff-v-lucas-ca6-1926.