# Appendix — Beresford v. Internal Revenue Service

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386014_2319%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 2001
- **Citation:** 534 U.S. 896

## Text

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 +

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386014_2319%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.