Pielemeier v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Pielemeier v. United States

543 F.2d 81

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 15, 1976

DocketNos. 74-3150, 74-3151

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 543 F.2d 81 (Pielemeier 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

Pielemeier v. United States, 543 F.2d 81 (9th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, taxpayers assert error in the judgment rendered by the District Court on June 25,1974, in favor of the government, in a refund suit against the government for taxes allegedly overpaid. The facts are not in dispute.

The district court stated, “The issue is whether, in computing earnings and profits, plaintiffs can take advantage of the Section 1248(d)(2) exclusions without taking into account the recapture of depreciation provisions of Section 1245.” Title 26, U.S.C., Internal Revenue Code, Adopted 1962.

The facts in these cases are the same in all respects as the facts in Brigham v. United States, 3 Cir., 1976, 539 F.2d 1312, except for the names of the plaintiff stockholders, the amount of stock in the foreign corporation that they own, and the amount of the refund claim involved. The federal question presented is identical to that in Brigham. In the cases at bar, the trial court ruled against the taxpayers: So did the Third Circuit in Brigham, supra. For the reasons stated in Judge Van Dusen’s opinion in Brigham, we affirm.

The motion of the taxpayers in No. 74-3150 to correct computation of tax may be filed and is denied. It is much too late in the life of the case to permit taxpayers to revive a claim for relief that, by stipulation, dropped out of the case long ago.

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

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, taxpayers assert error in the judgment rendered by the District Court on June 25,1974, in favor of the government, in a refund suit against the government for taxes allegedly overpaid. The facts are not in dispute.

The district court stated, “The issue is whether, in computing earnings and profits, plaintiffs can take advantage of the Section 1248(d)(2) exclusions without taking into account the recapture of depreciation provisions of Section 1245.” Title 26, U.S.C., Internal Revenue Code, Adopted 1962.

The facts in these cases are the same in all respects as the facts in Brigham v. United States, 3 Cir., 1976, 539 F.2d 1312, except for the names of the plaintiff stockholders, the amount of stock in the foreign corporation that they own, and the amount of the refund claim involved. The federal question presented is identical to that in Brigham. In the cases at bar, the trial court ruled against the taxpayers: So did the Third Circuit in Brigham, supra. For the reasons stated in Judge Van Dusen’s opinion in Brigham, we affirm.

The motion of the taxpayers in No. 74-3150 to correct computation of tax may be filed and is denied. It is much too late in the life of the case to permit taxpayers to revive a claim for relief that, by stipulation, dropped out of the case long ago.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

543 F.2d 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pielemeier-v-united-states-ca9-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack