Ben v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 26,Docket 24085.,26 |
| Citation | 241 F.2d 127 |
| Parties | Leslie R. BEN, doing business as Ben Construction Company, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
I. Gerald Pliskin, Syracuse, N. Y., for appellant.
Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, A. F. Prescott and Anthony T. Dealy, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Theodore F. Bowes, U. S. Atty., Northern District of New York, and Bernard Burdick, Asst. U. S. Atty., Syracuse, N. Y., of counsel), for appellee.
Before SWAN, MEDINA and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York rejecting appellant's claim for certain tax refunds. The issue and the facts are well stated in the opinion of the court below. 139 F.Supp. 883. Although the case is a close one, we cannot say the District Court improperly refused to upset the administrator's determination that the applicators were "employees" within the statutory scheme. United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704, 67 S.Ct. 1463, 91 L.Ed. 1757; Bartels v. Birmingham, 332 U.S. 126, 67 S.Ct. 1547, 91 L.Ed. 1947; Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Com. Shows v. Higgins, 2 Cir., 189 F.2d 865; Westover v. Stockholders Pub. Co., 9 Cir., 237 F.2d 948.
Affirmed
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Illinois Tri-Seal Products, Inc. v. United States
...Co. v. United States, 163 F.Supp. 794 (D.Mass., 1958); Ben v. United States, 139 F.Supp. 883 (N.D.N.Y., 1956), aff'd per curiam 241 F.2d 127 (2d Cir., 1957). But each of these cases is clearly distinguishable on its facts from the case here. Thus in Williams the scaffolding and equipment fo......
-
Lifetime Siding, Inc. v. United States
...issue of whether certain workmen (including roofing and siding "applicators") are employees or independent contractors. Ben v. United States, 241 F.2d 127 (2 Cir. 1957), affirming 139 F.Supp. 883 (N.D.N.Y. 1956) (applicators); Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Higgins, ......
-
Tristate Developers, Inc. v. US
...example, Alsco Storm Windows, Inc. v. United States, 311 F.2d 341 (9th Cir., 1962); Ben v. United States, 139 F.Supp. 883, aff'd. 241 F.2d 127 (2d Cir., 1957); Hoosier Home Improvement Co. v. United States, 350 F.2d 640 (7th Cir., 1965); Consolidated Housecraft, Inc. v. United States, 170 F......
-
Powers v. United States
...basis of the total factual situation. Hoosier Home Improvement Co. v. United States, 350 F.2d 640 (7th Cir. 1965); Ben v. United States, 241 F.2d 127, 128 (2d Cir. 1957), aff'g per curiam 139 F. Supp. 883 (N.D.N.Y.1956). While a combination of factors usually is determinative, a single fact......