Copyright & Fair-use Agreement
UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.Information
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
More Info
Rights
Digital Provenance
Publisher
Transcription
Mr. W. R. Rouse April 2, 1952 Bfiafik v. Little.Elver 239 U.&. *54, &Q t . ©of* D, riani nia«g*ei eDhitsot#r ilcut-. pry® Court hold & drainage district forced under Missouri laws to be a political subdivision of the state for the purpose of performing prescribed functions of government. M v, Puerto Rico Communication Authored. Wupp, 34, feoiding the Puerto'Rico Communications Authority, which operated telephone and telegraph service ©a the island, to be a political subdivision of the Insular Government and exempt from application of the Fair Labor Standards Act. App. jI2|dM)* L7,40p,p Hhloflld inv.g tChoautn tay woaft eOrr adnigset. ri3c0t Ccarl.e ated under the laws of California was not a municipal corporation within the meaning of certain constitutional provisions, but was a public agency exercising governmental functions, such as power of taxation and eminent domain. We should not overlook the fact, however, that there are many decisions holding that public districts of the character of the Las Vegas Water District are not political subdivisions of the state within the meaning of various typos of statutes. An illustrative esse is that of Maricopa County water Conservation District (Aris.J, 40 fee • (2d) 94, hold that the water district they involved was not a political subdivision ©f the state, although it exercised the taxing power.because it® purposes were primarily business rather than governmental. In view of the conflict in the decisions there exists the possibility that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue might take the position that the Las Vegas Water District is not a political subdivision within the meaning of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations thereunder above mentioned. Such was tbs position taken by the Commissioner in the case of Commissioner v. Shaibsrg* a Estate, 144 Fed. 2d 998, certiorari " denied, 89 L* sd. 031, involving a deficiency in income