SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

C. I. R. – Appellant
Versus
LANE-WELLS CO. , (1944) – Respondent


United States Supreme Court
C.I.R. v. LANE-WELLS CO., (1944)
No. 115
Argued: January 12, 1944 Decided: February 14, 1944

Mr. J. Louis Monarch, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. Raphaell Dechter, of Los Angeles, Cal., for respondents. [321 U.S. 219, 220]

Mr. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Lane-Wells Company is a transferee and successor of the taxpayer Technicraft Engineering Corporation and as such is liable for its taxes. The Commissioner, the Board of Tax Appeals,1 and the Circuit Court of Appeals2 have held that Technicraft was a personal holding company in 1934, 1935, and 1936, and that question is no longer open.

For the years named, Technicraft filed the usual corporation income tax returns on Treasury Form 1120. On this form the following appeared: Is the corporation a personal holding company within the meaning of section 351 of the Revenue Act of 1934 (or the appropriate year)? (If so, an additional return on Form 1120H must be filed.) To this each year Technicraft answered, No. In none of the years in question did it file a personal holding company return on Form 1120H. It was advised, and in good faith believed, that it


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top