Averill v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

3 Citing cases

  1. Fairbanks v. United States

    306 U.S. 436 (1939)   Cited 86 times

    The Circuit Court of Appeals below was right in holding that by the Act 1934 Congress did not attempt to construe the prior Acts and purposely made a material addition thereto. In Averill v. Commissioner, 101 F.2d 644, the Circuit Court of Appeals First Circuit acted upon a different view. This conflict caused us to bring up the present cause notwithstanding the application for certiorari had been denied earlier in the term.

  2. Yates v. McGowan

    39 F. Supp. 257 (W.D.N.Y. 1941)   Cited 2 times

    It held that the income received was a capital gain under Section 117 of the Act of 1934.         Averill v. Commissioner, 1 Cir., 101 F.2d 644, did not involve any question of a sale or exchange in re-organization. It did involve a straight sale of stock at a fixed price.

  3. Tully Trust v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

    1 T.C. 611 (U.S.T.C. 1943)

    We held that there was no merit in any of those contentions and that petitioners were entitled to have the profits realized on the sales taxed under section 101 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1928. The McKee case was acquiesced in by the Commissioner (Cumulative Bulletin 1937-1, pp. 10, 15) and was cited with approval in Frances M. Averill, 37 B. T. A. 485, 493; reversed on other issues, 101 F.2d 644, and in Isaac W. Frank Trust of 1927, 44 B. T. A. 934, 940 (on review to Third Circuit). In his reply brief the respondent, in criticising the McKee case, says it was decided without the benefit of the subsequent pronouncements of the United States Supreme Court in such cases as Helvering v. F. R. Lazarus Co.; Griffiths v. Helvering; Higgins v. Smith; and Helvering v. Horst, all supra.