Newark Milk & Cream Co. v. Com'r of Internal Revenue

34 F.2d 854, 8 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 9626, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3317, 8 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 9626
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedSeptember 11, 1929
Docket4007
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 34 F.2d 854 (Newark Milk & Cream Co. v. Com'r of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Newark Milk & Cream Co. v. Com'r of Internal Revenue, 34 F.2d 854, 8 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 9626, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3317, 8 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 9626 (3d Cir. 1929).

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal by the Newark Milk & Cream Company, the taxpayer', from an order of the Tax Board. The-proceeding was for the redetermination of deficiencies in income tax for the years 1922 and 1923 in the respective amounts of $3,788.75 and $3,241.55. The facts are stated in detail and.discussed at length in the opinion and findings of the board, and by reference thereto we avoid needless repetition. The case turns on what is the proper construction of an agreement entered into by the taxpayer company and contending sets of stockholders of the taxpayer in settlement of litigation, of business differences, policy, and the sale by one set and acquisition by the other of stock with an accompanying financial guarantee of the taxpayer to the selling stockholders. No principal of law is involved. The case concerns this individual contract, and the only issue decided by the Tax Board and now before this court is whether certain payments made *859 by tbe Newark Milk & Cream Company, in pursuance of its guaranty in the contract, were deductible from its income as being ordinary and necessary business expenses of tbe taxpayer corporation. Tbe board held tbe payments were not ordinary and necessary business expenses, but were parts of tbe price paid by the present stockholders to buy out their fellow stockholders and get control of the company.

After a careful study of record, we find ourselves in accord with the conclusion of the board, and therefore affirm its order.

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

Related

Cora-Texas Manufacturing Co. v. United States
222 F. Supp. 527 (E.D. Louisiana, 1963)
Ingalls v. Patterson
158 F. Supp. 627 (N.D. Alabama, 1958)
Williams & Waddell, Inc. v. Pitts
148 F. Supp. 778 (E.D. South Carolina, 1957)
Straub v. Granger
143 F. Supp. 250 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1956)
United Gas Improv. Co. v. Commissioner
25 T.C. 229 (U.S. Tax Court, 1955)
Schwabacher v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
132 F.2d 516 (Ninth Circuit, 1942)
Owens v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
125 F.2d 210 (Tenth Circuit, 1942)
Crowley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
89 F.2d 715 (Sixth Circuit, 1937)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. the Hub
68 F.2d 349 (Fourth Circuit, 1934)
Brawner v. Burnet
63 F.2d 129 (D.C. Circuit, 1933)
Falk Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
60 F.2d 204 (Seventh Circuit, 1932)
Hill v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
38 F.2d 165 (First Circuit, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 F.2d 854, 8 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 9626, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3317, 8 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 9626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newark-milk-cream-co-v-comr-of-internal-revenue-ca3-1929.