Pacific Ins. Co., Limited v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Pacific Ins. Co., Limited v. United States

188 F.2d 571, 40 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 468, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3288

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 16, 1951

Docket12686

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 188 F.2d 571 (Pacific Ins. Co., Limited v. United States) 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

Pacific Ins. Co., Limited v. United States, 188 F.2d 571, 40 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 468, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3288 (9th Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Court below, upon the authority of our decision in Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 89 F.2d 186, which involved the same question posed in the instant cause, dismissed the complaint. D.C., 90 F.Supp. 328.

Because of newly discovered facts concerning the legislative history of § 204 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 204, alleged not to have been before us in Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, supra, and which were considered in New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co. v. Commissioner of I. R., 2 T.C. 708, affirmed 1 Cir., 146 F.2d 697, and in United States v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 805, decided contra to our Pacific Employers case, appellants ask us to reverse the District Court and our own Pacific Employers case.

The new legislative history referred to is an isolated excerpt from a statement made by a witness before the congressional committee considering the legislation. As such, in our opinion, it is not entitled to consideration in determining legislative intent. Nor, in substance, does it indicate the intent claimed for it.

Consequently we reaffirm our decision in Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Commissioner of I.R., supra and affirm the judgment

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

PER CURIAM.

The Court below, upon the authority of our decision in Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 89 F.2d 186, which involved the same question posed in the instant cause, dismissed the complaint. D.C., 90 F.Supp. 328.

Because of newly discovered facts concerning the legislative history of § 204 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 204, alleged not to have been before us in Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, supra, and which were considered in New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co. v. Commissioner of I. R., 2 T.C. 708, affirmed 1 Cir., 146 F.2d 697, and in United States v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 805, decided contra to our Pacific Employers case, appellants ask us to reverse the District Court and our own Pacific Employers case.

The new legislative history referred to is an isolated excerpt from a statement made by a witness before the congressional committee considering the legislation. As such, in our opinion, it is not entitled to consideration in determining legislative intent. Nor, in substance, does it indicate the intent claimed for it.

Consequently we reaffirm our decision in Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Commissioner of I.R., supra and affirm the judgment

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 F.2d 571, 40 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 468, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacific-ins-co-limited-v-united-states-ca9-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack