Affiliations

• In Re Grant

  Cites Cohen v. Samuels — 237 Fed. Rep. 796, reversed.

• Felland v. Wilkinson

  District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1928-11-22 · cited 8×

  The case involved a complaint by Felland seeking to enjoin the collection of income tax liability assessed against him as a transferee of assets from the dissolved Stoughton Lumber Association. The court granted the motion to dismiss the bill. It held that section 604 of the Revenue Act of 1928 bars suits to restrain assessment or collection of transferee tax liabilities, in the same manner as section 3224 Rev. St. does for direct taxes, and that the case presented no extraordinary circumstances warranting an exception to that rule. The opinion reasoned that the statutory scheme requires payment of the tax followed by a suit for recovery, preserving the government's uninterrupted revenue collection even when the liability arises from a transfer of taxpayer assets.

  taxesfederal power

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (1,240 words)

• In Re Grant

  District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1927-08-08 · cited 4×

  In this bankruptcy case, the court reviewed a referee's order determining that two life insurance policies held by the bankrupt, with his wife as beneficiary, were not exempt under Wisconsin law and thus passed to the trustee as assets. The Prudential policy allowed the insured to unilaterally change the beneficiary and surrender the policy for its cash value, leading the court to affirm that it constituted an asset under section 70a of the Bankruptcy Act. In contrast, the New York Life policy had no change-of-beneficiary provision and required joint surrender for any cash value, resulting in reversal of the referee's order as the policy did not qualify as an asset. The decision turned on application of sections 6 and 70a of the Bankruptcy Act, Wisconsin Statutes sections 272.18 and 246.09 protecting certain insurance for married women, and U.S. Supreme Court precedents on policies subject to the bankrupt's control.

  propertyprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (1,853 words)

• Ashland Water Co. v. Railroad Commission

  District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1925-06-09 · cited 3×

  The case involved Ashland Water Company challenging the Wisconsin Railroad Commission's valuation of its utility property and the resulting rate schedules as inadequate to provide a fair return. The commission had determined a rate base of $620,734 using a split-inventory reproduction cost approach (Basis A) as of January 1, 1924, after the company petitioned for higher rates. The district court addressed the company's request for a temporary injunction against enforcement of the commission's order. A majority of the court granted the injunction but conditioned it on the company charging rates no higher than those needed for a 6% return on a valuation exceeding the commission's figure by up to $100,000, pending further proceedings. The reasoning centered on presumptions favoring the commission's expertise in costs and operations, the sufficiency of revenues even under a higher valuation, and the temporary nature of the relief sought.

  business & regulatoryproperty

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (16,443 words)