Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

E. C. Newsom and Beatrice D. Newsom v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 15131 (1955)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 15131 Visitors: 4
Filed: Feb. 24, 1955
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 219 F.2d 444 E. C. NEWSOM and Beatrice D. Newsom, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. No. 15131. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. February 24, 1955. Petition for Review of Decision of The Tax Court of the United States (District of Florida). William R. Frazier, James P. Hill, Jacksonville, Fla., Hill & Frazier, Jacksonville, Fla., for petitioners. Robert B. Ross, Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel A. Taylor
More

219 F.2d 444

E. C. NEWSOM and Beatrice D. Newsom, Petitioners,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 15131.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

February 24, 1955.

Petition for Review of Decision of The Tax Court of the United States (District of Florida).

William R. Frazier, James P. Hill, Jacksonville, Fla., Hill & Frazier, Jacksonville, Fla., for petitioners.

Robert B. Ross, Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel A. Taylor, Ch. Counsel, Rollin H. Transue, Sp. Atty., Washington, D. C., Int. Rev. Serv., for respondent.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and RIVES and TUTTLE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

The decision is affirmed on the opinion of the Tax Court, 22 T.C. 225, followed in Davis v. Dudley, D.C.W.D.Pa., 124 F. Supp. 426, 429, by District Judge Marsh, one of the judges who had joined in deciding United States v. Erie Forge Co., 3 Cir., 191 F.2d 627, thought by the petitioner to be in conflict with the decision of the Tax Court.1

2

Affirmed.

Notes:

1

See also United States v. Koppers Co. (Premier Oil Refining Co. v. United States), 1955, 348 U.S. ____, 75 S. Ct. 268; Stephan v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 197 F.2d 712; Middleton v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 200 F.2d 94; Maxwell v. Campbell, 5 Cir., 205 F.2d 461; Eck v. Commissioner, 16 T.C. 511, affirmed per curiam, 2 Cir., 202 F.2d 750; Bouche v. Commissioner, 18 T.C. 144, on appeal now to 2 Cir.; Smith v. Commissioner, 20 T.C. 663

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