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.
WARREN-NASH MOTOR CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, 1932 — 59 F.2d 1084 · caselaw · US
Corporations
WARREN-NASH MOTOR CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
59 F.2d 1084·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1932
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
WARREN-NASH MOTOR CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 145.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 27, 1932.
Osear W. Underwood, Jr., and H. C. Kil-patrick, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., and. Sewall Key and Norman D. Keller, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen. (C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue and J. M. Leinenkugel, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
A consolidated income tax return for the-petitioner, a New York corporation, and the Nash-Newark Company, a New Jersey corporation, was filed for the fiscal year 1923.. The question presented is whether a net loss suffered by a corporation in the year prior to its affiliation with the petitioner may be carried forward to the next succeeding year in which it was affiliated with the petitioner and applied against the petitioner’s net income in computing consolidated net income for such year. The question presented here-has been answered by the cases of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Ben Ginsburg Co., 54 F.(2d) 238 (decided by this court November 2, 1931) and Swift & Co. v. United States, 38 F.(2d) 365 (Court of Claims), and, upon the authority of these eases, the order must be affirmed.
Order affirmed.