Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Harry G. Gianakon and Helen L. Gianakon v. Commissioner of Internal Rev. Enue, 15637_1 (1966)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 15637_1 Visitors: 13
Filed: Apr. 06, 1966
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 358 F.2d 731 66-1 USTC P 9355 Harry G. GIANAKON and Helen L. Gianakon, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV. ENUE, Respondent. No. 15637. United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. Argued March 11, 1966. Decided April 6, 1966. Harry G. Gianakon, pro se. Jonathan S. Cohen, Tax Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Richard M. Roberts, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Meyer Rothwacks, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent.
More

358 F.2d 731

66-1 USTC P 9355

Harry G. GIANAKON and Helen L. Gianakon, Petitioners,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV. ENUE, Respondent.

No. 15637.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued March 11, 1966.
Decided April 6, 1966.

Harry G. Gianakon, pro se.

Jonathan S. Cohen, Tax Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Richard M. Roberts, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Meyer Rothwacks, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent.

Before SMITH and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges, and MILLER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

1

This matter is before this Court on a petition to review a decision of the Tax Court in which it was held that certain expenditures for educational purposes were not deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses under 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1654, 26 U.S.C.A. 162(a) and 1.162-5(b) of the Treasury Regulations, 26 C.F.R., 1.162-5. The only question for our decision is whether there exists in the record an adequate evidentiary basis for the decision. Cleveland v. C.I.R., 335 F.2d 473 (3rd Cir. 1964) and the cases therein cited. Upon an examination of the record we are convinced that the Tax Court's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and its conclusion is in accord with the law.

2

The decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer