U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 1937

Russell & Co. v. Sancho

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Decided November 9, 1937

92 F.2d 821; 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 4715 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

George M. Wolfson, of New York City (Francis E. Neagle and Rounds, Dilling-ham, Mead & Neagle, all of New York City, on the brief), for appellant., William C. Rigby, of Washington, D. C. (B. Fernandez Garcia, Atty. Gen., of Puer-to Rico, and Nathan R. Margold, Sol. for Dept, of Interior, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Central Aguirre Sugar Co. v. Domenech (1st Cir. 1940)
Lakewood Fire Protection District v. City of Lakewood (Colo. App. 1985)
Buscaglia v. Tax Court of Puerto Rico (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1949)
Buscaglia v. Tribunal de Contribuciones de Puerto Rico (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1949)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This court is unable to say that the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico was clearly wrong in ruling and holding that the machine described in plaintiff’s complaint was a tractor and taxable as such under -the provisions of section 16, par. 8, of the Internal Revenue Law of Puerto Rico 1925, No. 85, as amended by Act No. 83, § 16, par. 8, of 1931.

In this situation the plaintiff cannot recover the additional tax which it paid under protest, and the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico is affirmed, with costs to the appellee in this court.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.