Volume 282 — United States Reports

Held: on the authority of United States v. Anderson, supra, that as the books were kept and returns made on the accrual basis, the munitions tax which accrued in 1916 could not be deducted in the return for 1917. Petitioner’s returns for 1916 and 1917 were made after the effective date of §§ 12 (a), 13 (b) and 13 (d) of the Revenue Act of 1916 (c. 463, 39 Stat. 767 , 771).

Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a married person's income may be divided with his spouse in a community property state for purposes of U.S. federal income taxation. The Seaborns were residents of the State of Washington, a community property state, and each reported one-half of Mr. Seaborn's salary and other sources of income on their separate income tax returns. The Collector of Internal Revenue determined that the entire income should have been reported in Mr. Seaborn's return. The district court ruled in favor of Mr. Seaborn, and the Supreme Court affirmed. In doing so, the Court distinguished Lucas v.

O'Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 282 U.S. 251 (1931), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a state statute limiting the commissions allowable by insurers against loss by fire to local agents will be deemed a valid exercise of the police power in the absence of facts showing it to be unreasonable.

Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co., 282 U.S. 359 (1931), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court dealing with accounting for purposes of federal income tax and the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case held that an annual accounting system is a practical necessity if the federal income tax is to produce revenue ascertainable and payable at regular intervals.

Held: nor what facts were proved. If the proceeding was an unfair one, as lacking adequate notice, full hearing, or development of all relevant facts, appellant had' a remedy provided by the statute, which in the orderly processes of the administration of the law he was bound to pursue.

Educational Films Corp. v. Ward, 282 U.S. 379 (1931), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a state's corporate income tax may include royalties from copyrights in its calculation of overall income for the purposes of a franchise tax, even though direct income from copyrights, a federal institution, is immune from state taxation.

Held: against the dissent of Mr. Justice Story, that the personal liability was gone. Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236 . Later statutes however recognize suits against collectors in such cases, and the plaintiff contends that they should be construed to create a new statutory liability attached to the office and passing to successors, ■ as was held in this case, the formal defendant being saved from harm by the United States.

Held: that the permission to sue continues for two years after notice that the claims had been disallowed and that therefore these actions were commenced within time. As the Commissioner did not act within six months, permission to sue did not depend upon the rejection of. *659 the claim or upon the giving of the notice.

Held: that it involved invention. See The Barbed Wire Patent, 143 U. S. 275 , 283; Krementz v. S. Cottle Co., 148 U. S. 556 , 560; Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U. S. 261 .

United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the Fifth Article of the US Constitution. The defendants had been indicted under the National Prohibition Act and were attempting to quash their indictments, arguing that the Eighteenth Amendment had not been properly ratified. Their reasoning was that the Congress of the United States had chosen to ratify it by usage of state legislatures instead of constitutional conventions. If this were held true, Congress would have exceeded its authority in passing the NPA. The court did not agree, however, ruling that the Constitution explicitly authorized Congress to determine the method used in ratifying amendments.

of the opinion: “ 1. £ The banking business, carried on pursuant to a state charter, is quasi-public- and, for protection of the public and in its interests, is subject to reasonable regulation by the state.’ Citizens State Bank v. Strayer, 114 Neb. 567 ; “ 2.