U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1923

Lilley Building & Loan Co. v. Miller

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided February 6, 1923

285 F. 1020; 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1823; 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2671; 1922 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 2035; 2 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 1823

Counsel

John W. Wilson, of Columbus, Ohio, and Andrew J. Hess, of Sidney, Ohio (Oscar W. Newman, of Columbus, Ohio, Wilson & Rector, of Columbus, Ohio, and Pogue, Hoffheimer & Pogue, of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiff in error. C. M. Charest, Sp. Atty., for Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C., and W. J. Ford, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Columbus, Ohio (Thomas H. “Morrow, U. S. Atty., of Cincinnati, Ohio, and Carl A. Mapes, Solicitor of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Perpetual Bldg. & Loan Asso. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1960)
Securities & Exch. Com. v. American Internat'l S. & L. Ass'n (District Court, D. Maryland 1961)
Securities & Exchange Commission v. American International Savings & Loan Association, Inc. (District Court, D. Maryland 1961)

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.

Plaintiff in error, a corporation organized under the laws

of Ohio (General Code, § 9643' et seq.), sued the collector of internal revenue to recover income taxes, paid under protest, for the years 1918, 1919' and 1920, under the Revenue Act of 1918. 40 Stat. 1057 et seq. (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. ' 1919, § 6336%a et seq.j. Judgment was rendered for defendant. The sole question presented for review is whether plaintiff was exempt from the tax by virtue of section 231 (4) of the act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 6336% o), which exempts “domestic building and loan associations and co-operative banks without capital stock organized and operated for mutual purposes and without profit.” District Judge Peck, in a considered opinion (280 Fed. 143), held plaintiff not exempt. We approve, not only this conclusion, but the reasoning upon which it is based. The judgment of the District Court is accordingly affirmed, upon the opinion of the District Judge.

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