Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google
Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo!
Web Search
in the News
Google
News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google
Blog Search
Technorati
Blog Search
in other Databases
Google
Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Asarco Incorporated and Subsidiaries, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the United States of America, Defendant-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 111 F.3d 10
Argued April 17, 1997.Decided April 24, 1997
Appeal from a judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Mary Johnson Lowe, Judge) granting summary judgment to the defendant in its claim for a refund for amounts of minimum tax paid. Affirmed.
Neil D. Kimmelfield, Ball Janik, LLP, Portland, OR (James T. McDermott, of counsel) (David H. Bamberger, Coudert Brothers, New York City, of counsel), for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Robert W. Sadowski, Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of New York (Mary Jo White, United States Attorney, Gideon A. Schor, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), New York City, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: WINTER, CABRANES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case concerns the pre-1976 minimum tax provisions contained in Sections 56 and 57 of the Internal Revenue Code. 26 U.S.C. §§ 56 & 57 (1975). We affirm the judgment of the district court (Mary Johnson Lowe, Judge ), for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its opinion and order, Asarco Inc. v. United States, No. 89 Civ. 7078(MJL), 1996 WL 417521 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 1996), and by the Court of Claims in its opinion in Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. United States, 231 Ct.Cl. 334, 685 F.2d 1346 (1982), an opinion which the district court properly described as "squarely and thoroughly address[ing]" Asarco's arguments. Asarco, 1996 WL 417521, at * 1.