AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

JEWEL TEA CO., Inc., v. UNITED STATES.

At Law. Action by the Jewel Tea Company, Incorporated, against the United States of America. On defendant's motion to dismiss.

Motion granted.

COXE, District Judge.

The sinking fund provisions of the preferred stock did not create any debtor and creditor relation. Hazel Atlas Glass Co. v. Van Dyk Reeves, Inc. (C.C.A.) 8 F.2d 716; Commissioner v. O.P.P. Holding Corporation (C.C.A.) 76 F.2d 11. United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1, 52 S.Ct. 4, 76 L.Ed. 131, has, therefore, no application. The general rule is that a corporation receives no gain or loss from the purchase of its own stock. Johnson v. Commissioner (C.C.A.) 56 F.2d 58, certiorari denied Johnson v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 551, 52 S.Ct. 502, 76 L.Ed. 1287. And on the basis of the facts alleged in the amended complaint, the case is not within the exception recognized in Commissioner v. S.A. Woods Mach. Co. (C.C.A.) 57 F.2d 635, certiorari denied 287 U.S. 613, 53 S.Ct. 15, 77 L.Ed. 532. Neither is the statement in the claim for refund that "all of said purchases were part of a plan of acquiring its entire preferred stock issue" overridden by a general allegation that the transaction was "entered into by petitioner for profit and as part of its trade or business." Dascomb v. McCuen (C.C.A.) 73 F.2d 417.

The motion of the defendant to dismiss is granted.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

JEWEL TEA CO. v. UNITED STATES, (S.D.N.Y. 1936)
(Apr 22, 1936)