From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DE BOISBLANC v. USRY

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Dec 31, 1959
272 F.2d 111 (5th Cir. 1959)

Opinion

No. 17815.

December 4, 1959. Rehearing Denied December 31, 1959.

H. Charles Korn, New Orleans, La., for appellant.

John J. Pajak, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Lloyd Cyril Melancon, Asst. U.S. Atty., New Orleans, La., Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Loring W. Post, Charles B.E. Freeman, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., M. Hepburn Many, U.S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.


The only issue in this case is whether the rebuilding of automobile engines by the taxpayer constituted manufacturing under Section 3403(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C.A. § 3403(c) requiring imposition of the manufacturer's excise tax upon the sales of the rebuilt engines. This Court decided the same question adversely to the taxpayer in Hartley v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 262. See also Hackendorf v. United States, 10 Cir., 1957, 243 F.2d 760, certiorari denied 355 U.S. 826, 78 S.Ct. 36, 2 L.Ed.2d 40.

The decision is

Affirmed.


Summaries of

DE BOISBLANC v. USRY

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Dec 31, 1959
272 F.2d 111 (5th Cir. 1959)
Case details for

DE BOISBLANC v. USRY

Case Details

Full title:Felix DE BOISBLANC, Appellant, v. Chester A. USRY, District Director of…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Dec 31, 1959

Citations

272 F.2d 111 (5th Cir. 1959)

Citing Cases

Schultz v. Jack Smith's Automatic Transmission

The end product in either case is a finished part of an automobile ready for installation.Also see, e.g., De…