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.
WILSON BANKING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, 1930 — 36 F.2d 1023 · caselaw · US
Tax
WILSON BANKING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
36 F.2d 1023·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1930
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
WILSON BANKING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 4, 1930.
No. 5496.
St. Clair Adams, of New Orleans, La., for petitioner.
C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, and Irwin R. Blaisdell, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., opposed.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
In the above entitled and numbered cause, comes the respondent, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, by his attorneys, G. A. Youngquist, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, and C. M. Charest, Esq., General Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and confesses that in the record and proceedings had before the United States Board of Tax Appeals there is reversible error, in so far as the decision of the board is based upon the view that section 278 of the Revenue Act of 1924 (43 Stat. 299) enlarges the time within which collection may be made where assessment of the tax was made prior to the effective date of the Revenue Act of 1924. Because of said error so confessed, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said United States Board of Tax Appeals in said cause he and the same is reversed, and that said cause he and it is hereby remanded to said United States Board of Tax Appeals for further proceedings.
It is further ordered that the mandate of this court issue forthwith.