Opinion · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Lougee v. Commissioner

63 F.2d 112

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1933-01-31
Topic
general

BINGHAM, Circuit Judge. This is a petition to revise a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals sustaining a deficiency tax of $1,136.23 assessed against the petitioner upon $16,000, which he failed to return as income for the year 1926. The Board of Tax Appeals found as a fact that the $16,000 was received by the petitioner in 1926 as additional compensation for past services in the nature of salary and was taxable income. The petitioner’s *113contention is that the $16,000 was paid to and received by him as a gift. As the scope of review by this court of decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals is confined to questions of law, tho only legal question presented is whether there was any evidence from which the Board could find that the $16,000 was received by the petitioner as compensation for past services.

Citator

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

Cited by
8 opinions
LOUGEE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,63 F.2d 112(1st Cir. 1933)
LOUGEE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 2754.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
January 31, 1933.
Petition to Review the Decision of the United States Board of Tax Appeals.

Petition by Arthur L. Lougee, opposed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to revise a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals.

Affirmed.
Clark, Vanderhoof Little, of Boston, Mass. (Nelson B. Vanderhoof, of Boston, Mass., of counsel), for petitioner.

J. Louis Monarch, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen. (G.A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key and J.P. Jackson, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., and C.M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and W.F. Wattles, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before BINGHAM, WILSON, and MORTON, Circuit Judges.
BINGHAM, Circuit Judge.
This is a petition to revise a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals sustaining a deficiency tax of $1,136.23 assessed against the petitioner upon $16,000, which he failed to return as income for the year 1926.

The Board of Tax Appeals found as a fact that the $16,000 was received by the petitioner in 1926 as additional compensation for past services in the nature of salary and was taxable income. The petitioner'sPage 113contention is that the $16,000 was paid to and received by him as a gift.

As the scope of review by this court of decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals is confined to questions of law, the only legal question presented is whether there was any evidence from which the Board could find that the $16,000 was received by the petitioner as compensation for past services. We do not regard it necessary to recount the evidence. We have carefully examined it, and are of the opinion that it was sufficient to sustain the finding of the Board. There was a conflict of evidence upon the question, and, where such is the case, the finding of the Board is final.

The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed.Page 187