U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1930

Duquesne Steel Foundry Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided June 16, 1930 · Buffington, Woolley, Schoonmaker

41 F.2d 995; 8 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 11035; 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2959; 5 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 1598 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Wm. F. Knox and Moorhead & Knox, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner., G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and Norman D. Keller, Sp. Asst Attys. Gen. (C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Stanley Suydam, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Dowd-Feder, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (6th Cir. 1949)
James F. Waters, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Rev. (9th Cir. 1947)
New Jersey Worsted Mills v. Gnichtel (3d Cir. 1940)
Fort Pitt Bridge Works v. Commissioner of Internal Rev. (3d Cir. 1937)
Heinemann Chemical Co. v. Heiner (3d Cir. 1937)
Railroad Supply Co. v. Burnet (D.C. Cir. 1931)

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

PER CURIAM.

The question involved in this tax case is: “Where the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has determined that the petitioner is not entitled to have its profits tax deduction specially fixed under the provisions of section 210 of the Revenue Act of 1917, and such determination has been affirmed by the Board of Tax Appeals, may it be reviewed by this court in the absence of fraud or other irregularity?”

In Cramer and King Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 41 F.(2d) 24, this same question was before this court, and it there held:

“Whether a taxpayer is entitled to a special assessment under these sections was confided by the Congress to the discretion of the Commissioner and that discretion may not be reviewed by the courts in the absence of fraud or other irregularities. There is no hint of fraud or other irregularities here.”

Such being the case, the order made by the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed.

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