From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Posselius v. United States, (1940)

United States Court of Federal Claims
Feb 5, 1940
31 F. Supp. 161 (Fed. Cl. 1940)

Opinion

No. 43980.

February 5, 1940.

James A. Cosgrove, of Washington, D.C. (Raymond H. Berry, Ralph W. Barbier, and Arthur L. Evely, all of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for plaintiff.

George H. Foster, of Washington, D.C., and Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Robert N. Anderson and Fred K. Dyar, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., on the brief), for defendant.

Before WHALEY, Chief Justice, and GREEN, LITTLETON, WILLIAMS, and WHITAKER, Judges.



Plaintiff contends that the interest of $4,900.34 paid to and received by him in 1934, under the circumstances set forth in the findings, was exempt from tax under the provisions of section 22(b)(4)(A) of the Revenue Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C.A. § 22(b)(4) (A), as being interest upon an obligation of a state, territory, or a political subdivision of the State of Michigan. For the reasons set forth in the case of the Williams Land Co. v. United States, No. 43979, 31 F.2d 154, decided this date, we hold that the interest in question was taxable and was properly included in plaintiff's gross income for 1934. Plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled to recover and the petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Posselius v. United States, (1940)

United States Court of Federal Claims
Feb 5, 1940
31 F. Supp. 161 (Fed. Cl. 1940)
Case details for

Posselius v. United States, (1940)

Case Details

Full title:POSSELIUS v. UNITED STATES

Court:United States Court of Federal Claims

Date published: Feb 5, 1940

Citations

31 F. Supp. 161 (Fed. Cl. 1940)

Citing Cases

Kieselbach v. Commissioner

In any event, the question here is not whether these sums are interest. They may not be interest and yet be…

Holley v. United States

This was the holding of the Court of Claims with reference to the same project and to two contracts identical…