Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Charavay

79 F.2d 406

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1935-09-09
Topic
general

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge. The question involved in this case is whether there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the partnership of Stevens and Legg, of which the respondent was a member, was a dealer in securities during the years 1929 and 1930, and therefore entitled to the use of inventories in computing its income for those years. The Commissioner held against the taxpayer; the Tax Board in his favor. In so doing the Tax Board discussed in detail the situation in its reversing opinion, and reference thereto saves needless repetition. It grasped and decided the gist of the case as follows: “In our opinion, however, the controlling factor here is not the method by which the partnership obtained’ customers or made sales.

Citator

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

Cited by
13 opinions
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CHARAVAY,79 F.2d 406(3rd Cir. 1935)
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CHARAVAY.
No. 5733.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
September 9, 1935.
Petition for Review from the United States Board of Tax Appeals.

Petition by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to review an order of the Board of Tax Appeals redetermining a deficiency in the tax imposed against Marius A. Charavay by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Order affirmed.
Frank A. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Norman D. Keller and Thomas A. Carpenter, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., and Carlton Fox, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

J. Nelson Anderson, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
The question involved in this case is whether there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the partnership of Stevens and Legg, of which the respondent was a member, was a dealer in securities during the years 1929 and 1930, and therefore entitled to the use of inventories in computing its income for those years. The Commissioner held against the taxpayer; the Tax Board in his favor. In so doing the Tax Board discussed in detail the situation in its reversing opinion, and reference thereto saves needless repetition. It grasped and decided the gist of the case as follows: "In our opinion, however, the controlling factor here is not the method by which the partnership obtained customers or made sales. It is the fact that the partnership purchased securities and held them not for investment or speculation, but for resale at a profit to anyone who desired to buy."

Finding no error in the Board's action, we limit ourselves to approving the same.Page 407