226 F.2d 583 - Moe v. Earle — 226 F.2d 583

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1973

5 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Tooze, Kerr, Hill, Dougherty & Tooze, Lamar Tooze, Robert M. Kerr, Stuart W. Hill, Portland, Or., for appellants.

¶2Marion B. Plant, Bailey Lang, Brob-eck, Phleger & Harrison, San Francisco, Cal., amici curiae.

¶3H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., C. Guy Tadlock, Carolyn R. Just, Lee A. Jackson, Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., Andrew D. Sharpe, Chief, Trial Section, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., C. E. Luckey, U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., Thomas R. Winter, Sp. Asst, to Regional Counsel, I.R.S., Seattle, Wash., for appellee.

¶4Before STEPHENS, HEALY, and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6This appeal raises complicated questions of income taxation in regard to the withholding of a portion of the proceeds derived from the handling and marketing of apples by a cooperative organization. The appeal is from a judgment of the district court by which the court denied to taxpayer a refund of amounts paid under protest.

¶7The judgment is affirmed without a reasoned opinion because we adhere to the general principles expressed in our opinion in the case of Caswell’s Estate v. C. I. R., 1954, 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 693. See also C. I. R. v. Carpenter, 5 Cir., 1955, 219 F.2d 635.