Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000160 194

Image

File
Download upr000160-194.tif (image/tiff; 26.75 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000160-194
    Details

    Rights

    This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

    Digital Provenance

    Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

    Publisher

    University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

    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