Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

E. C. Newsom and Beatrice D. Newsom v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

219 F.2d 444

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1955-02-24
Topic: general

*445 PER CURIAM. The decision is affirmed on the opinion of the Tax Court, 22 T.C. 225, followed in Davis v. Dudley, D.C.W.D.Pa., 124 F.Supp. 426, 429, by District Judge Marsh, one of the judges who had joined in deciding United States v. Erie Forge Co., 3 Cir., 191 F.2d 627, thought by the petitioner to be in conflict with the decision of the Tax Court. 1 Affirmed. 1 . See also United States v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed E. C. Newsom and Beatrice D. Newsom v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 7 opinions

NEWSOM v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,219 F.2d 444(5th Cir. 1955)

E.C. NEWSOM and Beatrice D. Newsom, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF

INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 15131.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

February 24, 1955.

Petition for Review of Decision of The Tax Court of the United States (District of Florida).

William R. Frazier, James P. Hill, Jacksonville, Fla., Hill Frazier, Jacksonville, Fla., for petitioners.

Robert B. Ross, Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel A. Taylor, Ch. Counsel, Rollin H. Transue, Sp. Atty., Washington, D.C., Int. Rev. Serv., for respondent.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and RIVES and TUTTLE, Circuit Judges.Page 445

PER CURIAM.

The decision is affirmed on the opinion of the Tax Court,22 T.C. 225, followed in Davis v. Dudley, D.C.W.D.Pa.,124 F. Supp. 426,429, by District Judge Marsh, one of the judges who had joined in deciding United States v. Erie Forge Co., 3 Cir.,191 F.2d 627, thought by the petitioner to be in conflict with the decision of the Tax Court.¹

Affirmed.Page 469

See also United States v. Koppers Co. (Premier Oil Refining Co. v. United States), 1955, 348 U.S. ___,75 S.Ct. 268; Stephan v. Commissioner, 5 Cir.,197 F.2d 712; Middleton v. Commissioner, 5 Cir.,200 F.2d 94; Maxwell v. Campbell, 5 Cir.,205 F.2d 461; Eck v. Commissioner,16 T.C. 511, affirmed per curiam, 2 Cir.,202 F.2d 750; Bouche v. Commissioner,18 T.C. 144, on appeal now to 2 Cir.; Smith v. Commissioner,20 T.C. 663. ↩