Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

SOKOL BROS. FUR. v. COMMR. OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 185 F.2d 677 (5th Cir. 1950)

SOKOL Bros. FURNITURE Co., Petitioner, v. Comm’r OF INTERNALREVENUE, Respondent., 185 F.2d 677 (5th Cir. 1950)

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1950-12-05
Topic
general

SOKOL BROS. FUR. v. COMMR. OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 185 F.2d 677 (5th Cir. 1950) SOKOL BROTHERS FURNITURE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNALREVENUE, Respondent.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed SOKOL BROS. FUR. v. COMMR. OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 185 F.2d 677 (5th Cir. 1950). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

SOKOL BROS. FUR. v. COMMR. OF INTERNAL REVENUE,185 F.2d 677(5th Cir. 1950)
SOKOL BROTHERS FURNITURE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 13030.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
On Rehearing December 5, 1950.
Rehearing Denied December 27, 1950.
On rehearing.

Rehearing denied.

For former opinion, see185 F.2d 222.
Crampton Harris, George S. Brown, and Robert Scott Gordon, all of Birmingham, Ala., for petitioner.

Theron L. Caudle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., Charles Oliphant, Chief Counsel, Bur. of Int. Rev., Claude R. Marshall, Sp. Atty., Bur. of Int. Rev., Washington, D.C., Lee A. Jackson and Hilbert P. Zarky, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for respondent.Page 678
Before McCORD, BORAH and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In concentrating upon the correct decision of the contested issue in this case, we omitted to give direction for further proceedings to be had in the cause in accordance with the stipulation between the parties, whereby the case was agreed to be remanded to the Tax Court for further computation under its Rule 50,26 U.S.C.A. § 1111. To avoid possible misapprehension, we now evidence acceptance of the stipulation filed in this Court October 10, 1950, and remand the case to the Tax Court for recomputation of tax liability in accordance with the authorities referred to in such stipulation and the opinion of this Court as heretofore announced.

The motion for rehearing is denied.Page 729