Reynolds v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.

168 F.2d 943, 36 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1157, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 3891, 36 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 1157
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 14, 1948
DocketNo. 13579
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 168 F.2d 943 (Reynolds v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Reynolds v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 168 F.2d 943, 36 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1157, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 3891, 36 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 1157 (8th Cir. 1948).

Opinion

JOHNSEN, Circuit Judge.

The Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Company in 1944 was assessed employment taxes under the Carriers Taxing Act, 26 U.S.C.A.Int.Rev.Code, § 1500 et seq., 45 U.S.C.A. § 261 et seq., on the workers who had performed services in 1940 under an employment relationship with the Shipley Company which had contracted to perform such services for the Railway Co. On denial of its claim for refund, the Railway Co. sued in the District Court to recover the taxes so paid and obtained a judgment. See Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Reynolds, D.C. Minn., 68 F.Supp. 499. The Collector has appealed.

The Shipley Co. had been in the business of furnishing various contract services to railroads since 1923, and appellee had begun its contract relations with the Shipley Co. during that year. In general, the contracts involved related to the placing of coal, in bins or chutes; coaling locomotives; storing ice; icing refrigerator cars; cleaning freight cars; unloading and reloading livestock for feed, water and rest; and handling and servicing heaters in refrigerator cars.

The situation in its material aspects is controlled by our opinion in Reynolds v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 8 Cir., 168 F.2d 934, and we need not additionally discuss it.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co. v. Kelm
104 F. Supp. 745 (D. Minnesota, 1952)
Reynolds v. Great Northern Ry. Co.
168 F.2d 944 (Eighth Circuit, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 F.2d 943, 36 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1157, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 3891, 36 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 1157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-v-chicago-st-p-m-o-ry-co-ca8-1948.