Kaufman v. United States
Decision Date | 12 November 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 4941.,4941. |
Citation | 131 F.2d 854 |
Parties | KAUFMAN v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
LeRoy R. Cohen, Jr., of Richmond, Va., for appellant.
Warren F. Wattles, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen. (Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., Sterling Hutcheson, U. S. Atty., and John V. Cogbill, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Richmond, Va., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SOPER, DOBIE, and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges.
This is an action brought in October, 1940, by the appellant, Louise E. Kaufman, here referred to as the plaintiff, against the United States of America, here referred to as the defendant, in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
The object of the action was to recover income taxes, in the amount of $988.90 for the years 1934, 1935 and 1936, paid by the plaintiff under protest and alleged to have been unlawfully assessed.
A jury was waived and a hearing had before the judge below in June, 1941. After the hearing the judge filed findings of fact and conclusions of law holding for the defendant. A judgment was entered for the defendant and from this action this appeal was brought. The opinion of the court is reported in 40 F.Supp. 505.
There is no dispute as to the facts and as found by the judge below they are as follows:
The statute involved is Section 22(b) (1) of the Revenue Act of 1934, 26 U.S. C.A. Int.Rev.Code § 22(b)(1), which reads as follows:
Under this Revenue Act of 1934 Treasury Regulation 86 was promulgated. This Regulation provided in part as follows:
The question involved is whether all amounts paid to the plaintiff in excess of the face amount of the policies are taxable to her as income.
The plaintiff admits that under Treasury Regulation 86 such sums are properly taxable to her but contends that this Regulation is contrary to the intent of Congress as expressed by the statute and therefore void.
The defendant contends that all such excess payments constitute...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vasquez v. Reno
... ... No. 00-1505 ... United States Court of Appeals, For the First Circuit ... Heard November 6, 2000 ... Decided December ... ...
-
Fisher Flouring Mills Company v. United States
...365, 377, 65 S.Ct. 1232, 89 L.Ed. 1670; Social Security Board v. Nierotko, 327 U.S. 358, 361, 66 S.Ct. 637, 90 L.Ed. 718; Kaufman v. United States, 4 Cir., 131 F.2d 854; Helvering v. Edison Brothers Stores, 8 Cir., 133 F.2d 10 "In Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 2......
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pierce
...v. Bartlett, 2 Cir., 113 F.2d 766; Commissioner v. Buck, 2 Cir., 120 F.2d 775; Allis v. La Budde, 7 Cir., 128 F.2d 838; Kaufman v. United States, 4 Cir., 131 F.2d 854. The parenthesis applies to cases where the capital sum is retained for a season undiminished, and only the interest is paid......
-
In re Town Crier Bottling Co., 11811.
...a rule out of harmony with the statute is a mere nullity. Helvering v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 4 Cir., 95 F.2d 806; Kaufman v. United States, 4 Cir., 131 F.2d 854; C. I. R. v. Winslow, 1 Cir., 113 F.2d 418, 133 A.L.R. 405; Manhattan General Equipment Co. v. C. I. R., 297 U.S. 129, 56 S.Ct......