Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Denton J. Rees and Kathryn G. Rees

295 F.2d 817

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1961-11-09
Topic
capital-markets-and-corporate-governance

PER CURIAM. Appellees were successful in the district court in securing a judgment against appellant for the refund of income taxes erroneously paid by appellees for the tax years 1955, 1956 and 1957. The broad question presented on this appeal is whether amounts paid to appellees during said taxable years under a sales agreement are entitled to be taxed as capital gains, or, as appellant contends, should such amounts be taxed as ordinary income. The facts as found by the district court are not disputed by the appellant. The judgment of the district court is fully supported by the findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Denton J. Rees and Kathryn G. Rees. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
UNITED STATES v. REES,295 F.2d 817(9th Cir. 1961)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Denton J. REES and Kathryn G.
Rees, Appellees.
No. 17348.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
November 9, 1961.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; John F. Kilkenny, Judge.
Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks, Kenneth E. Levin and John Jones, Jr., Attys. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., and Sidney I. Lezak, Acting U.S. Atty., and Edward J. Georgeff, Asst. U.S. Atty., Portland, Or., for appellant.

A.W. Pedersen, Portland, Or., for appellee.
Before POPE and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges, and JAMES M. CARTER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellees were successful in the district court in securing a judgment against appellant for the refund of income taxes erroneously paid by appellees for the tax years 1955, 1956 and 1957.

The broad question presented on this appeal is whether amounts paid to appellees during said taxable years under a sales agreement are entitled to be taxed as capital gains, or, as appellant contends, should such amounts be taxed as ordinary income. The facts as found by the district court are not disputed by the appellant.

The judgment of the district court is fully supported by the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The opinion of the district court is reported at187 F. Supp. 924, 925.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.