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.
MILLINERY CENTER BUILDING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, 1934 — 73 F.2d 1007 · caselaw · US
Corporations
MILLINERY CENTER BUILDING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
73 F.2d 1007·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1934
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
MILLINERY CENTER BUILDING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 75.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Nov. 5, 1934.
Edmund S. Koehersperger, of Washington, D. C. (Herman A. Brand, of New York City, of counsel), for petitioner.
Prank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and John MacC. Hudson, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Decision reversed on the authority of Bonwit Teller & Co. v. Commissioner (C. C. A.) 53 F. (2d) 381, 82 A. L. R. 325.