Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Laird v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

97 F.2d 730

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1938-06-29
Topic
general

*731 FOSTER, Circuit Judge. The question presented for decision in this case is whether petitioner, who had executed an oil and gas lease for a consideration paid partly in cash and to he paid partly out of oil to be produced from the lease, but without retaining a royalty interest, was entitled to depletion on the cash received The Board decided that petitioner was not entitled to claim depletion on the cash payment. We may refer to the opinion of the Board for the facts in detail without repeating them. See 35 B.T.A. 75. On the authority of Commissioner v.

Citator

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

Cited by
4 opinions
LAIRD v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,97 F.2d 730(5th Cir. 1938)
LAIRD v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 8678.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 29, 1938.
Petition for Review of Decision of the United States Board of Tax Appeals (District of Texas).

Petition by Roy H. Laird to review a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals redetermining a deficiency in a tax imposed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Decision affirmed.
Harry C. Weeks, of Fort Worth, Tex., for petitioner.

Helen R. Carloss, Lucius Buck, and Sewall Key, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J.P. Wenchel, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Frank M. Thompson, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.Page 731
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
The question presented for decision in this case is whether petitioner, who had executed an oil and gas lease for a consideration paid partly in cash and to be paid partly out of oil to be produced from the lease, but without retaining a royalty interest, was entitled to depletion on the cash received. The Board decided that petitioner was not entitled to claim depletion on the cash payment. We may refer to the opinion of the Board for the facts in detail without repeating them. See35 B.T.A. 75. On the authority of Commissioner v. Fleming, 5 Cir.,82 F.2d 324; Blankenship v. United States, 5 Cir.,95 F.2d 507; Helvering v. O'Donnell,58 S.Ct. 619, 82 L.Ed. ___; and Helvering v. Elbe Oil Land Development Co.,58 S.Ct. 621, 82 L.Ed. ___, the decision of the Board is

Affirmed.