Clear

2196 search results for query *


Summary: 381 F.2d 416 The FRANKLIN COMPANY v. 1 The Franklin Company was engaged in June 1962 to prepare technical manuals for the Army and its Engineer Maintenance Center under an "indefinite delivery requirements type contract", with payments originally estimated at $1,063,795.92. Although the estimated cost of work to be performed under the fixed-price section was $471,213.75, plaintiff received only about $212,933.06 worth in assignments and urges that the Government's failure to provide sufficient p......read more.


Summary: 373 F.2d 944 GMO. OPINION PER CURIAM:* 1 * The plaintiffs in this action seek to recover compensation for the vesting by the Attorney General of the United States on July 26, 1951, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. At the time of the vesting, the cash and securities in question were on deposit with the National City Bank and the Chase National Bank of New York City, which held the assets in accounts maintained under the name of Gmo. 3 The original plaintiffs in the......read more.


Summary: 336 F.2d 199 Charles H. GRAHL v. He was then entitled to receive retired pay under Title III of the Army and Air Force Vitalization and Retirement Equalization Act of 1948.1 Title III provides for the so-called "point system" of retirement for members of the Reserve forces and the National Guard who have received credit for more than 20 years of Federal service, though they may have performed less than 20 years of active duty service, and who have reached age 60. He held a federally-recognized c......read more.


Summary: 7 F. Supp. *291 *292 Charles F. Fawsett, of Milwaukee, Wis. (J. C. Argetsinger, of Youngstown, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiff. Before the Commissioner made any allowance on account of the overpayment, plaintiff, on June 15, 1929 (after a previous tender of filing on or about April 15, 1929), filed a claim for refund for the entire amount of $74,293.51, which included as a basis therefor not only the grounds set out in the claim filed November 3, 1926, but also the additional grounds set out ......read more.


Summary: 35 F.2d 982 (1929) HIRSH et al. v. UNITED STATES. Each of said agreements recited decedent's desire to make a gift of $50,000 to the child therein named "save and extent to the amount necessary to purchase an annuity to be paid by" (naming the child with whom the agreement was made) to decedent's wife, "Amalie Hirsh, of the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for and during each year of the life of Amalie Hirsh, namely, one thousand dollars ($1,000) on the first day of May and one thousand doll......read more.


Summary: 297 F.2d 838 Francis D. HOUSTON v. It says he is not entitled to recover as a matter of law for two reasons: first, that he is collaterally estopped by a judgment of the District Court for the District of Columbia, affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals, Houston v. Mason, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 377, 267 F.2d 654; and, second, that the action of the Civil Service Commission in upholding his discharge is final, in the absence of a showing that this action was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unla......read more.


Summary: 170 F. Supp. The question presented in this case is whether the Horace Heidt Foundation is entitled to an exemption from Federal income taxes under the provisions of section 101(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 from the period of its organization on September 6, 1949, to May 31, 1950. See Smith v. Reynolds, D.C., 43 F. Supp. [4] Sico Co. v. United States, 102 F. Supp. 458; C. F. Mueller Co. v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 190 F.2d 120; Roche's Beach, Inc., v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 96 F.2d 776; D......read more.


Summary: 377 F.2d 580 ALASKA FREIGHT LINES, INC. v. OPINION OF COMMISSIONER* BERNHARDT, Commissioner: 2 The specific problem before the court is whether a division agreement for the apportionment of rail revenues between the plaintiff interstate motor carrier and the Government-owned Alaska Railroad Company is to be construed to permit the Railroad to charge plaintiff for the interchange of freight at the Railroad's Seward Dock at Seward, Alaska, when plaintiff's motor carrier competitors who, unlike pla......read more.


Summary: 413 F.2d 1167 SOUTHWEST WELDING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. Because of their size (which militated against manufacture elsewhere and shipment by common carrier to the project site), and because of the need to develop a mass-production type of welding procedure, these sections were formed and welded from rolled plate in a fabricating shop erected by the contractor at the job site. 5 The issue involved is quite succinctly stated in the first of these administrative decisions, as follows: 6 The Cont......read more.


Summary: 295 F.2d 915 Isidore ZEIGER v. UNITED STATES. 7 Both parties cite and discuss the cases of Hynning v. United States, 141 Ct. 486 (1958), Prosterman v. United States, 144 Ct. 692 (1959), McGuire v. United States, No. 383-54, decided February 11, 1959, and Vitarelli v. United States, Ct. Subdivision (c), § 2062, Title 5 of the United States Code Annotated2 places a maximum limit of leave that may be accumulated and states that it shall not exceed that amount.


Summary: 329 F.2d 939 STANDARD LIME AND CEMENT COMPANY (formerly known as the Standard Lime and Stone Company) v. The ultimate question for determination in this case is the amount of gross income attributable to the mining of these minerals for the purpose of computing taxpayer's percentage depletion allowance under section 613 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.1 Specifically in issue before this court is whether certain indirect costs incurred apart from the mining (pre-kiln feed) and manufacturing ......read more.


Summary: 339 F.2d 625 E. L. ARMIGER ET AL. Marjorie H. ALBRECHT, Gertrude and Donald Bein, Margaret K. Clark, Albert Desiderio, and Zebulon V. Young, Respectively, either as Personal Representative, Heir-at-Law, Next-of-Kin, and/or Next Friend, of William F. Albrecht, Henry Bein, Robert L. Clark, Albert J. Desiderio, and Jefferson B. Young, All Deceased v. See United States v. Hainline, 315 F.2d 153 (C.A. 10), cert. 2d 124 (1963); O'Connell v. United States, 110 F. Supp. E.g., Cooner v. United States, 27......read more.


Summary: 126 F. Supp. The issue presented in this case is whether or not the taxpayer is entitled to include as a part of the cost of its franchise, for purposes of determining depreciation and loss due to abandonment, the undepreciated cost of a bridge exchanged for a 10-year extension of the franchise. The taxpayer's bookkeeper took depreciation on the bridge for the part of 1934 that taxpayer owned it and promptly wrote the asset off the books by a direct debit to surplus of $228,852.74, without repor......read more.


Summary: 119 F. Supp. 161 (1954) BLACKFEET & GROS VENTRE TRIBES OF INDIANS v. UNITED STATES. The appellee filed a motion for summary judgment as to all four claims on the ground that the issues involved therein were res adjudicata under the decision of this court in Blackfeet Nations v. United States, 81 Ct. This action was brought under clause (1) of section 2 of the Indian Claims Commission Act, supra, which provides: "The Commission shall hear and determine the following claims against the United Stat......read more.


Summary: 432 F.2d 801 LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, LOCKHEED-GEORGIA COMPANY DIVISION v. 1 This case comes before the court for Wunderlich Act review (41 U.S.C. §§ 321, 322) of a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (hereinafter referred to as the ASBCA or the Board), in Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Lockheed-Georgia Company Division, ASBCA No. 10453, 67-1 BCA, ¶ 6356, p. 29,439 (decided May 18, 1967). 2 Plaintiff Lockheed had a $10,500,000 negotiated fixed-price contract with the A......read more.


Summary: 15 F. Supp. Plaintiffs contend that there were no valid waivers of the statute of limitation which extended the period to March 24, 1925, for assessment of additional income tax in respect of the income of Frank E. Anderson from 1917 and that even if there were such valid waivers the assessment made in this case was wholly invalid and of no force and effect; and as no assessment was made within any statutory period against the estate of Frank E. Anderson for 1917 the additional *222 tax, which w......read more.


Summary: 295 F.2d 936 Kate Mock BACON (1), Bertha Mock Davis, Stella Mock Hunter, Kate Mock Bacon, and Alma Mock Hilsman, A Partnership Doing Business As Baker Heights (2), Stella Mock Hunter (3), J. W. Mock (4), J. W. Mock, Jr. (5), L. Eugene Mock, Sr. (6), L. Eugene Mock, II (7) v. UNITED STATES. Baker Heights subdivision was laid out by plaintiffs Bertha Mock Davis, Stella Mock Hunter, Kate Mock Bacon, and Alma Mock Hilsman prior to the arrival of the F-84Fs in 1954. Bertha Mock Davis, Stella Moc......read more.


Summary: 74 F. Supp. On April 19, 1944, there was forwarded to the plaintiff a copy of the ruling of the Regional Director of the Federal Public Housing Authority, denying the plaintiff's claim on the grounds (1) that the plaintiff could not have completed its work within the contract time without working a 48-hour week, and (2) that the contractor was obliged to comply with the Executive Order here in question, without compensation for its losses in doing so, because the order was issued by the Governme......read more.


Summary: 109 F. Supp. John F. Curran, Enid, Okl., was on the brief. This is an appeal by the Pawnee Indian Tribe of Oklahoma from a final determination of the Indian Claims Commission, dated July 14, 1950 (Indian Claims Commission Docket No. 10). [1] Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 Appellant's first claim is for just compensation under Section 2(1) of the Indian Claims Commission Act, for a strip of land consisting of approximately one million acres located in north-central Kansas. Section 2(1) of the Act provides......read more.


Summary: 6 F. Supp. The controversy relates to an overpayment by the Charles A. Zahn Company, an Illinois corporation, of its income and profits taxes for the year 1920 which, to the extent of $32,081.68, was credited by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue against taxes due from the same company for the year 1919, after the expiration of the statutory period in which taxes for the year 1919 were legally collectible. 3 F. Supp. 1495; David Daube v. United States, 59 F.(2d) 842, 1 F. Supp.