Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Makransky's Estate v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
154 F.2d 59
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1946-02-25
- Topic
- general
PER CURIAM. In these cases the taxpayers ask this court to review the finding of the Tax Court that a loss which they incurred in the sale of contracts for the future delivery of wool was a loss upon the sale of capital assets and not an ordinary and necessary expense of their business deductible under Section 23(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 23(a), or a loss deductible under Section 23(e). We think that this is a finding which this court is not at liberty to review. Dobson v.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Makransky's Estate v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 2 opinions
In these cases the taxpayers ask this court to review the finding of the Tax Court that a loss which they incurred in the sale of contracts for the future delivery of wool was a loss upon the sale of capital assets and not an ordinary and necessary expense of their business deductible under Section 23(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 23(a), or a loss deductible under Section 23(e). We think that this is a finding which this court is not at liberty to review. Dobson v. Commissioner, 1943, 320 U.S. 489, 64 S.Ct. 239, 88 L.Ed. 248; John Kelley Co. v. Commissioner, 1946, 66 S.Ct. 299.
The decision of the Tax Court is affirmed.