Appendix — Beresford v. Internal Revenue Service

Supreme Court, 0S

PILED

04 291 ave 1 3 2001

Sy we A oe ST

No.

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

STEVEN M. BERESFORD

Petitioner

V.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

US DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

(UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

Respondent

APPENDICES

A: DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT

B: MEMORANDUM OF THE NINTH

CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Cc ORDER OF THE NINTH

CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

D: SUPREME COURT CASES

: APPENDIX A

OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE DISTRICT OF OREGON, Civil No. 00-293-KI

OPINION AND ORDER, GARR M. KING, United

States District Court Judge.

STEVEN M. BERESFORD, Ph.D. v. INTERNAL

REVENUE SERVICE, US. GOVERNMENT

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Pro se plaintiff Steven Beresford files this action

against the Internal Revenue Service and United

States Government Department of the Treasury to

obtain a refund of taxes, penalties, and interest.

Beresford contends that the American tax system is

based on voluntary compliance and that he has no

legal obligation to file or pay income taxes. Before

the court is the United States’ motion to dismiss,

plaintiff's motion for change of venue, and plaintiff's

motion for default judgment.

DISCUSSION

1. Motion to Change Venue

Beresford’s motion for a change of venue is

actually a motion seeking my recusal A judge is

required to disqualify himself when his impartiality

might be reasonably questioned, for example, where

he has a personal bias concerning a party or personal

knowledge of disputed facts, or when he has a

financial or other interest in the subject matter which

could be substantially affected by the outcome. 28

1

U.S.C. 455. Section 455 has no provision for referring

the motion for recusal to another judge. Instead, it is

self-enforcing on the part of the judge. United States

v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867-68 (9th Cir. 1980)

Beresford lists several instances in which he

disagrees with my actions or failures to rule on his

requests. He points to nothing showing impartiality

by me. I know of nothing. The motion is denied _

IL. Motion for Default

Beresford moves for a default judgment because

the government failed to file an answer.

Beresford insists that the United States is not a

proper defendant and that attorneys from the

Department of Justice and United States Attorney

may not represent defendant. He also contends that

there are two different legal entities named the

United States of America.

The United States is the only proper defendant

in a suit to recover a tax refund It is to be substituted

for other named defendants. 26 USC. 7422 (f). His

contention about different legal entities and which

attorneys may represent the defendant are frivolous.

On May 2, 2000, I granted defendant’s motion

to extend its time to file a response to the complaint

until June 7, 2000. On that day, defendant filed the

pending motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss on the

grounds stated is to be filed before further pleadings,

including the answer. F.R.CP 12 (b). A default can

only be taken when a party has failed to plead or

otherwise defend as provided by the rules. F.R.CP. 55

2

eS NET nN ETT Neer Fs

(a). The motion to dismiss is an example of

“otherwise defending.” The motion for a default is

denied.

II Motion to Dismi

Defendant moves to dismiss under Rules 12

(bX1) and 12 (bX6) for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted.

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12 (bX6) will

only be granted if it “appears beyond doubt that a

plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his

complaint which would entitle him to relief.” Gilligan

v. Jamco Development Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 248 (9th

Cir. 1997). Normally, the review is limited to the

complaint and all allegations of material fact are

taken as true and viewed in the light most favorable

to the non-moving party.

Beresford alleges the following facts. Based on

his belief that the income tax system is based on

voluntary compliance, Beresford wrote to the IRS to

explain that he had chosen not to comply and would

not be paying overdue taxes for 1987, 1988, and 1989.

The IRS issued a federal tax lien against him, which it

satisfied by withholding $14,609.97 from the sale of

Beresford’s house in October 1999. Beresford seeks to

recover that sum plus interest and costs. He also

seeks a permanent injunction “forbidding defendant

from contacting him against his wishes and from

directly or indirectly interfering in any other aspect of

his life.”

Defendant argues that Beresford’s action fails to

state a claim for relief under any of the relevant

statutes.

The tax laws were amended in 1998 to provide

for collection due process. Under 26 USC. 6330 (dX),

judicial review of an IRS determination is handled in

the Tax Court, unless it does not have jurisdiction over

the underlying tax liability. Because this case is about

federal income taxes, the Tax Court, and not this

district court has jurisdiction under 6330.

The district court does have jurisdiction over civil

actions for the recovery of “any internal revenue tax

alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed

or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been

collected without authority .. .” 28 USC. 1346 (aX]).

Beresford’s primary contention, that the federal

income tax system is based on voluntary compliance,

has been held to be “completely lacking in legal merit

and patently frivolous.” Lonsdale v. United States, 919

F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990); Wilcox v. Commissioner

of Internal Revenue, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988).

Because Beresford’s action lacks any merit, it

provides no basis for an injunction. Moreover, the

Anti-Injunction Act states: “no suit for the purpose of

restraining the assessment or collection of any tax

shall be maintained in any court by any person,

whether or not such person is the person against

whom such tax was assessed.” 26 U.S.C. 7421(a)

The Supreme Court has carved out an

exception to the prohibition. If it is clear that under

no circumstances could the government ultimately

prevail, an injunction may issue if equity jurisdiction

otherwise exists.

Navigation Co,, 370 US. 1,7 (1962) . That is not the

case here.

In summary, this action fails to state a claim

on which relief may be based.

CONCLUSION

The United States’ motion to dismiss is granted.

Plaintiffs motion for change of venue is denied.

Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is denied The

action is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated this 13 day of July, 2000

(SIGNED) Garr M. King

United States District Court Judge

APPENDIX B:

MEMORANDUM OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 00-35650, Civil No. 00-293-KI

MEMORANDUM. Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and

RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

STEVEN M. BERESFORD, Ph.D. v. INTERNAL

REVENUE SERVICE, US. GOVERNMENT

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Steven Beresford PhD. appeals pro se the

district court’s order dismissing his action seeking a

refund of federal income taxes, penalties, and interest

and requesting a permanent injunction. The district

court rejected a meritless Beresford’s contention that

he has no legal obligation to file or pay income taxes

because the American income tax system is based

upon voluntary compliance. See generally Wilcox v.

Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988).

We reject as unavailing Beresford’s contentions

on appeal that the district court made a false

statement, based its ruling upon a false statement,

ignored legal precedent, ignored published statements

made by the Internal Revenue Service, ignored

published testimony by an IRS official, ignored federal

statutes, and violated Beresford’s due process rights to

a fair trial

AFFIRMED

(UNSIGNED) Dated 2/12/2001

6

a

APPENDIX C:

ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 00-35650, Civil No. 00-293-KI

MEMORANDUM. Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and

RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

STEVEN M. BERESFORD, Ph.D. v. INTERNAL

REVENUE SERVICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc s

construed as a petition for panel rehearing and

petition for rehearing en banc. The panel has voted

to deny appellant's petition for panel rehearing.

Judges Thomas and Rawlinson have voted to deny the

petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Leavy so

recommends.

The full court has been advised of the petition

for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a

vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. See

FRAP. 35.

The petition for panel rehearing and the

petition for rehearing en banc are denied.

(UNSIGNED) Undated, Filed 5/17/2001

APPENDIX C:

LIST OF SUPREME COURT CASES CITING

FLINT, STRATTON'S, ST ANTON, SOUTHERN

PACIFIC, DOY LE, PECK, EISNER, MERCHANT'S,

LOAN, BOWERS.

a) FLINT vy. STONE TRACY

220 U.S. 107 (1911)

Texas v. United States, 476 U.S. 1151 (1986)

Zonne vy. Minneapolis, 220 US. 187 (1911)

Werner vy. Director of Taxation, 350 US. 492 (1956)

United States v. Pyne, 313 US. 127 (1941)

Anderson v. Broadway Co., 239 US. 69 (1915)

Equitable Life v. Pennsylvania, 238 US. 143 (1915) "

Interborough Transit v. Sohmer, 237 US. 276 (1915)

United States v. Emery, 237 US. 28 (1915)

Meyer v. Wells Fargo & Co,, 223 US. 298 (1912)

Eliot v. Freeman, 220 US. 178 (1911)

Quaker City v. Pennsylvania, 277 US. 389 (1928)

Doyle vy. Mitchell Bros, Co,, 247 US. 179 (1918)

Magnuder v. Washington. 316 US. 69 (1942)

Higgins v. Commissioner, 312 US. 212 (1941)

saltade «dann, 300 US. 506 (1937)

Northwestern Life vy, Wisconsin, 275 US. 136 (1927)

Hump Hairpin v. Emmerson, 258 US. 290 (1922)

Fidelity v. Columbia Trust Co,, 245 US. 54 (1917) ()

United States v. Whitridge, 231 US. 144 (1913) ‘ ’

McCoach v. Minehill, 228 US. 295 (1913)

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Co,, 240 US. 1 (1916)

Barclay & Co, v. Edwards, 267 US. 442 (1925)

Cream of Wheat Co, v, Grand Forks, 253 U.S. 325 (1920)

United States v. Doremus, 249 US. 8 (1919)

Helvering v. Powers, 293 US. 214 (1934)

Hemphill v. Orloff, 277 U.S. 537 (1928)

Missouri Pacific v. Kansas, 248 US. 276 (1919)

Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore, 410 US. 356 (1973)

Tradesmen’s Bank v. Oklahoma, 309 U.S. 560 (1940)

Milliken y. United States, 283 US. 15 (1931)

Kansas City v. Botkin, 240 US. 227 (1916)

Macallen vy. Massachussetts, 279 U.S. 620 (1929)

417 US. 369 (1974)

Pittsburgh v. Aalco Parking,

Welch v, Henry, 305 US. 134 (1938)

Brush v. Commissioner, 300 US. 352 (1937)

Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 US. 124 (1929)

Willing v. Chicago Auditorium, 277 US. 274 (1928)

259 US. 20 (1922)

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.,

Stratton's v. Howbert, 231 US. 399 (1913)

Christoffel v. United States, 338 U.S. 84 (1949)

Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 US. 577 (1937)

Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 US. 514 (1926)

Dawson vy. Kentucky Distilleries, 255 U.S. 288 (1921)

Anglo-Chilean Nitrate vy. Alabama, 288 US. 218 (1933)

Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 US. 405 (1938)

Safe Deposit Co, v. Maryland, 280 US. 83 (1929)

La Belle Iron Co. y. United States, 256 US. 377 (1921)

Ohio Tax Cases vy. United States, 232 US. 576 (1914)

Baltic Mining Co, v. Massachusetts, 231 US. 68 (1913)

United States v. Minnesota, 223 US. 335 (1912)

National Life v. United States, 277 US. 508 (1928)

Billings v. United States, 232 US. 261 (1914)

Morrisey v. Commissioner, 296 US. 344 (1935)

Pacific Co, v. Johnson, 285 U.S. 480 (1932)

Untermeyer v. Anderson, 276 US. 440 (1928)

Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 US. 251 (1918)

Von Baumbach vy, Sargent Land Co,, 242 US. 503 (1917)

United States v. Sperry Corp., 493 US. 52 (1989)

Commissioner v, Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23 (1987)

Educational Films v. Ward, 282 US. 379 (1931)

Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920)

United States y, Mississippi, 412 US. 363 (1973)

State of New York vy. United States, 326 US. 572 (1946)

Garcia v. San Antonio, 469 US. 528 (1985)

Yellin v. United States, 374 U.S. 109 (1963)

Heiner v. Donnan, 285 US. 312 (1932)

United States v. Rock Royal Co,, 307 U.S. 533 (1939)

California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 US. 21 (1974)

Burnet vy. Brooks, 288 US. 378 (1933)

Arizona _v. California, 283 US. 423 (1931)

Hecht v. Mallet, 265 US. 144 (1924)

Smith v. Kansas City Title, 255 US. 180 (1921)

Portland Golf Club vy. Commissioner, 497 U.S. 154 (1990)

Woolworth v. Taxation Dept, 458 USS. 354 (1982)

Indiana v. Jackson, 283 U.S. 527 (1931)

Steward Machinery Co, v, David, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)

b) STRATTON’S INDEPENDENCE y, HOWBERT

231 U.S 399 (1913)

Dillon vy. Strathearn Co,, 248 US. 182 (1918)

Anderson v, Broadway Co., 239 US. 69 (1915)

Bowers v, Kerbaugh Empire Co,, 271 US. 170 (1926)

Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628 (1925)

Goldfield Mines Co., v. Scott, 247 US. 126 (1918)

Ricaud v. American Metal, 246 U.S. 304 (1918)

Helvering v. Independent Life, 292 US. 371 (1934)

Stanton v, Baltic Mining Co., 240 US. 103 (1916)

Comunissioner vy. Glenshaw Glass, 348 U.S. 426 (1955)

Hill v. United States, 298 U.S. 460 (1936)

United States v. Biwabik Co,, 247 US. 116 (1918)

Yon Baumbach v. Sargent Land Co,, 242 US. 503 (1917)

Burnet v. Harmel, 287 US. 103 (1932)

Merchant's Loan v. Smietkana, 255 US. 509 (1921)

Doyle vy. Mitchell Bros, Co., 247 US. 179 (1918)

Southern Pacific Co, v. Lowe, 247 US. 330 (1918)

10

poses nde sb aatieendnatenata te

Anderson v. Helvering, 310 US. 404 (1940)

New York v. Graves, 300 US. 308 (1937)

Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 US. 124 (1929)

Oliver Iron Co, v. Lord, 262 US. 172 (1923)

Lukard vy. Reed, 481 U.S. 368 (1987)

Burton-Sutton Co, v. Commissioner, 328 US. 25 (1946)

Douglas vy. Commissioner, 322 US. 275 (1944)

Columbus Gas Co. v. P.U.C., 292 U.S. 398 (1934)

Commissioner v. Brown. 380 US. 563 (1965)

United States v. Kaiser, 363 US. 299 (1960)

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US. 189 (1920)

c) STANTON y. BALTIC MINING CO.

240 US. 103 (1916)

Goldfield Mines Co, v, Scott, 247 US. 126 (1918)

Peck v. Lowe, 247 US. 165 (1918)

Helvering v. Independent Life, 292 U'S. 371 (1934)

Helvering v. Falk, 291 U.S. 183 (1934)

Burnet v. Thompson Oil Co, 283 US. 301 (1931)

United States v. Biwabik Co., 247 US. 116 (1918)

Von Baumbach vy, Sargent Land Co,, 242 US. 503 (1917)

Burnet v. Harmel, 287 US. 103 (1932) _

Bromley v. McCaughn., 280 US. 124 (1929)

Iron Mining Co. v. Lord, 262 US. 172 (1923)

Morrisey v. Commissioner, 296 U.S. 344 (1935)

Willauts v. Bunn, 282 US. 216 (1931)

Douglas v. Commissioner, 322 US. 275 (1944)

Evans vy. Gore, 253 US. 245 (1920)

Eisner vy. Macomber, 252 US. 189 (1920)

il

d) | SOUTHERN PACIFIC Co. vy. LOWE

247 U.S. 330 (1918)

Gulf Oil Co..v. Lewellyn, 248 US. 71 (1918)

Peabody v. Eisner, 247 U.S. 347 (1918) |

New Colonial Ice Co., v. Helvering, 292 US. 435 (1934)

Foster v. United States, 303 US. 118 (1938)

Burnet v. Commonwealth, 287 US. 415 (1932)

Weiss v. Stearn, 265 US. 242 (1924)

Moline Properties v. Commissioner, 319 US. 436 (1943)

Helvering v. Canfield, 291 US. 163 (1934)

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co,, 271 US. 170 (1926)

Lynch v. Hornby, 247 US. 339 (1918)

286 US. 244 (1932)

MacLaughlin v. Alliance Co,,

Lucas v. Alexander, 279 US. 573 (1929)

National Carbide v. Commissioner, 336 US. 422 (1949)

Burnet v. Harmel, 287 US. 103 (1932)

Merchant's Loan v, Smietkana, 255 US. 509 (1921)

Old Colony Co, v. Commissioner, 284 US. 552 (1932)

United States v. Phellis, 257 US. 156 (1921)

Maryland Casualty v. United States, 251 US. 342 (1920)

American Power Co. v. Securities, 325 US. 385 (1945)

La Belle Iron Co. vy. United States, 256 US. 377 (1921)

e) DOYLE v. MITCHELL

247 US. 179 (1918)

United States v. Cleveland R. Co,, 247 US. 195 (1918)

Foster vy. United States, 303 US. 118 (1938)

Hays vy. Gauley Mountain Coal Co., 247 US. 189 (1918)

300 US. 216 (1937)

Helvering v. Midland Mutual Life,

Burnet v. Logan, 283 US. 404 (1931)

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 US. 170 (1926)

292 US. 371 (1934)

Helvering v. Independent Life,

Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co., 282 U.S. 359 (1931)

naile doe reweens b6 arpa itp nienmmeanenane edie attneees

12

OT ee Ra LE ees rn eee CR IN en Tee

United States v. Safety Car Heating. 297 US. 88 (1936)

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass, 348 US. 426 (1955)

Maclaughlin v. Alliance Ins. Co., 286 US. 244 (1932)

Burnet v. Thompson Oil & Gas Co,, 283 US. 301 (1931)

Lucas v. Alexander, 279 US. 573 (1929)

Snyder v. Commissioner, 295 U.S. 134 (1935)

Merchant’s Loan Co, v. Smietkana, 255 US. 509 (1921)

Southern Pacific Co., v. Lowe, 247 US. 330 (1918)

Old Colony R. Co, v. Commissioner, 284 US. 552 (1932)

Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 US. 124 (1929)

La Belle Iron Co. v. United States, 256 US. 377 (1921)

Lukard v. Reed, 481 US. 368 (1987)

United States v. Catto, 384 US. 102 (1966)

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US. 189 (1920)

f) PECK v. LOWE

247 U.S. 165 (1918)

266 US. 373 (1924)

Spalding Bros. v. Edwards, 262 U.S. 66 (1923)

Clyde v. Gilchrist, 262 U.S. 94 (1923)

Gillespie y. Oklahoma, 257 US. 501 (1922)

Matson Navigation Co. y. State, 297 US. 441 (1936)

267 US. 442 (1925)

U.S, Glue Co., v. Oak Creek, 247 US. 321 (1918)

Texas Transport v. New Orleans, 264 US. 150 (1924)

Underwood Co, v. Chamberlain, 254 US. 113 (1920)

Evans vy. Gore, 253 US. 245 (1920)

Northwestern v. Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450 (1959)

New York v. Graves, 300 US. 308 (1937)

Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514 (1926)

Ozark Pipeline Co, v. Monier, 266 U.S. 555 (1925)

Atlantic v. Doughton, 262 US. 413 (1923)

Missouri v. Gehner, 281 US. 313 (1930)

Educational Films v. Ward, 282 US. 379 (1931)

13

Macallen v. Massachusetts, 279 U.S. 620 (1929)

Shaffer v. Carter, 252 US. 37 (1920)

Anglo-Chilean Corp. v. Alabama, 288 US. 218 (1933)

Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405 (1938)

General Motors v. Washington, 377 US. 436 (1964)

National Life v. United States, 277 U.S. 508 (1928)

Colgate v. Harvey, 296 US. 404 (1935)

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US. 189 (1920)

g) EISNER v. MACOMBER

252 U.S. 189 (1920)

Irwin v. Gavit, 268 US. 161 (1925)

Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 US. 527 (1921)

Walsh v. Brewster, 255 US. 536 (1921)

Merchant’s Loan Co, v, Smietkana, 255 U.S. 509 (1921)

Koshland v. Helvering, 298 US. 441 (1936)

United States v. Phelps, 257 U.S. 156 (1921)

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass, 348 U.S. 426 (1955)

Healy v. Commissioner, 345 US. 278 (1953)

Foster v. United States, 303 U.S. 118 (1938)

Burnet v. Commonwealth, 287 US. 415 (1932)

Werks v. Stearn, 265 US. 242 (1924)

Culligan v. Walker, 262 US. 134 (1923)

Miles v, Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 259 U.S. 247 (1922)

Beidler v. Commissioner, 282 U.S. 1 (1930)

Taft v. Bowers, 278 US. 470 (1929)

Bowers v,. Kerbaugh-Empire Co,, 271 US. 170 (1926)

Marr vy. United States, 268 U.S. 536 (1925)

Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 US. 628 (1925)

United States v. Supplee-Biddle Co., 265 U.S. 189 (1924)

Helvering v. Bruun, 309 US. 461 (1940)

Helvering v. Independent Life, 292 U.S. 371 (1934)

Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks, 282 U.S. 359 (1931)

United States v. Swift & Co., 282 U.S. 468 (1931)

14

Posados v. Warner, Barnes & Co,, 279 US. 340 (1929)

McDonald v. Maxwell, 274 US. 91 (1927)

Blatte Co, v. United States, 305 US. 267 (1938)

MacLaughlin v. Alliance Ins. Co., 286 US. 244 (1932)

Lucas v. Alexander, 279 US. 573 (1929)

Burnet v. Harmel, 287 US. 103 (1932)

Rhode Island Hospital v. Doughton, 270 US. 69 (1926)

Helvering v. Gowran, 302 US. 238 (1937)

State of New York v. Graves, 300 US. 308 (1937)

Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda, 293 US. 84 (1934)

Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514 (1926)

Helvering v. Griffiths, 318 US. 371 (1943)

Commissioner vy. Kowalski, 434 US. 77 (1977)

La Belle Iron Co, v. United States, 256 US. 377 (1921)

Lukard v. Reed, 481 U.S. 368 (1987)

United States v. Davis, 397 US. 301 (1970)

United States v. Safety Car Heating, 297 US. 88 (1936)

Skelley Oil Co, v. Phillips Oil Co,, 339 U.S. 667 (1950)

National Carbide v. Commissioner, 336 US. 422 (1949)

United States v. Donruss Co., 393 US. 297 (1969)

United States v. Kaiser, 363 US. 299 (1960)

First National v. State of Maine, 284 US. 312 (1932)

Rutkin v. United States, 343 US. 130 (1952)

Cottage Savings v. Commissioner, 499 U.S. 554 (1991)

Commissioner v. Fink, 483 US. 89 (1987)

Commissioner v. Culbertson, 337 U.S. 733 (1949)

Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405 (1938)

Evans v. Gore, 253 US. 245 (1920)

Ivan Allen Co. v. United States, 422 US. 617 (1975)

James v. United States, 366 US. 213 (1961)

Commnissioner v. Wodehouse, 337 U.S. 369 (1949)

Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165 (1958)

Adamson v. State of California, 332 US. 46 (1947)

Monroe vy. Pape, 365 US. 167 (1961)

15

h) MERCHANT'S LOAN & TRUST CO.

v. SMIETKANA, 255 U.S. 509 (1921)

Eldorado Coal & Mining v. Mager, 255 US. 522 (1921)

Goodrich v. Edwards, US. 527 (1921)

Walsh y. Brewster, 255 US. 536 (1921)

Hellmich v. Hellmen, 276 US. 233 (1928)

Miles v, Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 259 US. 247 (1922)

Hartley v. Commissioner, 295 US. 216 (1935)

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 US. 170 (1926)

Edwards v, Cuba R. Co,, 268 US. 628 (1925)

United States v. Supplee-Biddle Co., 265 U.S. 189 (1924)

Smietkana v. First Trust & Savings, 257 U.S. 602 (1922)

Blatt Co. v. United States, 305 U.S. 267 (1938)

Anderson v. Wilson. 289 US. 20 (1933)

MacLaughlin v. Alliance Ins, Co., 286 U.S. 244 (1932)

Lucas v. Alexander, 279 US. 573 (1929)

Snyder v. Commissioner, 295 US. 134 (1935)

Burnet v. Harmel, 287 US. 103 (1932)

United States v. Stewart, 311 US. 60 (1940)

United States v. Safety Car Heating, 297 US. 88 (1936)

Willcuts v. Bunn, 282 US. 216 (1931)

National Carbide v. Commissioner, 336 U.S. 422 (1949)

Commissioner v. Culbertson, 337 US. 733 (1949)

i) BOWERS vy. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO,

271 U.S. 170 (1926)

United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 US. 1 (1931)

291 US. 426 (1934)

Helvering v. American Chicle Co.,

Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 US. 277 (1937)

Helvering v. Independent Life, 292 U.S. 371 (1934)

Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co., 282 US. 359 (1931)

Rogers’ Estate v. Helvering, 320 US. 410 (1943)

Blatt Co, v. United States, 305 US. 267 (1938)

16

She ee nga ee OL eens +