Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Corporations
FIRST CHROLD CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
306 U.S. 11783 L. Ed. 542·Supreme Court of the United States·1939
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
FIRST CHROLD CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 385.
Argued January 6, 1939.
Decided January 30, 1939.
Mr. John E. McClure, with whom Mr. Robert N. Miller was on the brief, for petitioner.
Solicitor General Jackson, Assistant Attorney General Morris, and Messrs. Sewall Key, J}aul A. Freund, and Morton K: Rothschild submitted for.respondent.
[MAJORITY — Mb. Justice RobeRTS]
Mb. Justice RobeRTS
delivered the opinion of the Court. ■
This case presents the same question as that involved in No. 328, Helvering v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., ante, p. 110. Certiorari was granted because of a conflict in the decisions below. . The statutory provision under which this case arises is § 22 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1932, which is the same as the .corresponding section of the Revenue Act of 1928. The regulations, original and amended, have the same relation to this controversy as to that in No. 328. The Board of Tax Appeals sustained a determination of a deficiency in the petitioner’s tax for the calendar year 1933 and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirm'ed the Board’s ruling.
For the reasons given in No. 328 the judgment must be
Reversed.
97 F. 2d 22.