Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiff
plaintiff

Related Cases

Kirchman v. C.I.R., 862 F.2d 1486, 63 A.F.T.R.2d 89-588, 89-1 USTC P 9130
View Case »
Chamberlin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 368 U.S. 820, 82 S.Ct. 36 (Mem), 7 L.Ed.2d 25
View Case »
Blake v. Commissioner of Correction, 403 Mass. 764, 532 N.E.2d 671
View Case »
Grove v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 54 T.C. 799
View Case »
Wiebusch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 59 T.C. 777
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Movielab, Inc. v. U. S., 503 F.2d 1406 (Table), 1974 WL 21835, 34 A.F.T.R.2d 74-5745, 74-2 USTC P 9698

Facts

On March 20, 1974, the court announced its opinion and entered judgment that the plaintiff is entitled to recover. Subsequently, on August 14, 1974, the parties filed a written stipulation agreeing to the amounts of the tax refund for the years 1963 and 1966, which totaled $975,464.05.

On March 20, 1974, the court announced its opinion and entered judgment that the plaintiff is entitled to recover. Subsequently, on August 14, 1974, the parties filed a written stipulation agreeing to the amounts of the tax refund for the years 1963 and 1966, which totaled $975,464.05.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the specified amounts for tax refunds for the years 1963 and 1966.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the specified amounts for tax refunds for the years 1963 and 1966.

Rule

The court applied the principles governing tax refunds and the stipulations agreed upon by the parties.

The court applied the principles governing tax refunds and the stipulations agreed upon by the parties.

Analysis

The court reviewed the stipulation filed by the parties and determined that the agreed amounts for the tax refunds were appropriate. The court's ruling was based on the stipulation that clearly outlined the amounts owed to the plaintiff for the respective years.

The court reviewed the stipulation filed by the parties and determined that the agreed amounts for the tax refunds were appropriate.

Conclusion

The court entered judgment for the plaintiff in the total amount of $975,464.05, which includes the refunds for the years 1963 and 1966, plus statutory interest.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that judgment be and the same is entered for plaintiff in the sum of nine hundred fifty-four thousand eight hundred forty-nine dollars and five cents ($954,849.05) for the year 1966 and twenty thousand six hundred fifteen dollars ($20,615) for the year 1963, plus interest as provided by law.

Who won?

Plaintiff prevailed in the case as the court ruled in their favor for the tax refunds they sought.

Plaintiff prevailed in the case as the court ruled in their favor for the tax refunds they sought.

You must be