Forrest L. Moe and Edith B. Moe, Appellants, v. Hugh H. Earle, Former Collector of Internal Revenue at Portland, Oregon, Appellee, 226 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1955)
Annotate this CaseAppeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; Gus J. Solomon, Judge.
Tooze, Kerr, Hill, Dougherty & Tooze, Lamar Tooze, Robert M. Kerr, Stuart W. Hill, Portland, Or., for appellants.
Marion B. Plant, Bailey Lang, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, San Francisco, Cal., amici curiæ.
H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., C. Guy Tadlock, Carolyn R. Just, Lee A. Jackson, Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., Andrew D. Sharpe, Chief, Trial Section, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., C. E. Luckey, U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., Thomas R. Winter, Sp. Asst. to Regional Counsel, I.R.S., Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, HEALY, and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal raises complicated questions of income taxation in regard to the withholding of a portion of the proceeds derived from the handling and marketing of apples by a cooperative organization. The appeal is from a judgment of the district court by which the court denied to taxpayer a refund of amounts paid under protest.
The judgment is affirmed without a reasoned opinion because we adhere to the general principles expressed in our opinion in the case of Caswell's Estate v. C. I. R., 1954, 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 693. See also C. I. R. v. Carpenter, 5 Cir., 1955, 219 F.2d 635.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
