Wadhams & Co. v. United States

67 Ct. Cl. 235, 7 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 9010, 1929 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 386, 1929 WL 2610
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMarch 11, 1929
DocketNo. H-162
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 67 Ct. Cl. 235 (Wadhams & Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wadhams & Co. v. United States, 67 Ct. Cl. 235, 7 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 9010, 1929 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 386, 1929 WL 2610 (cc 1929).

Opinion

Green, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The facts in the case are clearly and briefly stated in the findings. The case involves the construction of section 240 of the revenue act of 1918, 40 Stat. 1057, and particularly that portion thereof which reads as follows (p. 1082) :

“(b) For the purpose of this section two or more domestic corporations shall be deemed to be affiliated (1) if one corporation owns directly or controls through closely affiliated interests or by a nominee or nominees substantially all the stock of the other or others, * *

The plaintiff did not “ own directly or control through closely affiliated interests ” or otherwise “ substantially all the stock ” of the Perfection Company. Opitz owned twenty per cent of it and was under no obligation to sell it to the plaintiff. In fact, he did not even offer to sell it, nor did the plaintiff endeavor to buy it. True, the plaintiff managed the business of the Perfection Company and controlled its operations, but in order to come within the provisions of the statute the control must be of substantially all the stock, and we think there were reasons for this language. The Boston Structural Steel Co. case, 1 B. T. A. 1004, is not an authority to the contrary. In that case there was control of all the stock through a right to purchase at any time at a fixed price.

[239]*239The cases deciding what corporations are affiliated are very numerous, but no definite rule can be derived from them. In fact, they can not be entirely harmonized. The ultimate conclusion is that the decision must depend largely on the particular facts in the case under consideration.

We think the petition should be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Sinnott, Judge; Moss, Judge; Graham, Judge; and Booth, Chief Justice, concur.

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

Related

Fanchon & Marco, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
133 F. Supp. 839 (S.D. New York, 1955)
Omaha Baum Iron Store, Inc. v. United States
8 F. Supp. 703 (Court of Claims, 1934)
Commissioner v. Atlantic City Electric Co.
57 F.2d 186 (Second Circuit, 1932)
Commissioner v. Walden Knife Co.
54 F.2d 627 (Second Circuit, 1931)
Handy & Harman v. Burnet
284 U.S. 136 (Supreme Court, 1931)
Madera Yosemite Big Tree Auto Co. v. United States
49 F.2d 672 (Court of Claims, 1931)
United States v. CLEVELAND, P. & ER CO.
42 F.2d 413 (Sixth Circuit, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 Ct. Cl. 235, 7 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 9010, 1929 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 386, 1929 WL 2610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wadhams-co-v-united-states-cc-1929.