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.
GOSSETT v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (two cases), 1932 — 60 F.2d 484 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
GOSSETT v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (two cases)
60 F.2d 484·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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
GOSSETT v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (two cases).
Nos. 3276, 3277.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Aug. 1, 1932.
Por former opinion, see 59 F.(2d) 365.
James Craig Peacock, of Washington, D. C. (John W. Townsend, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioners.
John H. MeEvers, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen. (G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sew-all Key, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., and C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and O. J. Tall, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before NORTHCOTT and SOPER, Circuit Judges, and WAY, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
In the petition for rehearing it is stated that the court overlooked section 201 (h) of the Revenue Act of 1926 (26 USCA § 932 (h), which reads as follows: “(h) As used in this section the term ‘amounts distributed in partial liquidation’ means a distribution by a corporation in complete cancellation or redemption of a part of its stock, or one of a series of distributions in complete cancellation or redemption of all or a portion of its stock.”
It seems to us that the opinion clearly holds that the dividend in question was a distribution in redemption of a portion of the stock of the corporation.
The section in question was given careful cohsideration in the preparation of the opinion of the court, and the rehearing is denied.
Rehearing denied.