Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Saenger v. Commissioner

Saenger v. Comm’r, 69 F.2d 633 (5th Cir. 1934)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1934-03-10
Topic: general

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge. The denial of A. D. Saengesr’s petition (C. C.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Saenger v. Commissioner. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 10 opinions

SAENGER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,69 F.2d 633(5th Cir. 1934)

Bertha H. SAENGER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent.

No. 7147.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 10, 1934.

Petition for Review of Decision of the United States Board of Tax Appeals, District of Louisiana.

S.L. Herold, of Shreveport, La., for petitioner.

Frank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key and Norman D. Keller, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., and E. Barrett Prettyman, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Hartford Allen, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

The denial of A.D. Saenger's petition (C.C.A.)69 F.2d 631, denies Mrs. Saenger's too. Co-owners of the income earned, they are co-payers of the tax on it.

Unlike in Earl's Case,281 U.S. 111,50 S. Ct. 241,74 L. Ed. 731, husband and wife here are joint, not separate, earners. Together they are the tree. They share its fruits and the burdens of that sharing. Bender v. Pfaff,282 U.S. 127,51 S. Ct. 64,75 L. Ed. 252.

The petition is denied.