Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Albert Winnick v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Ida Winnick v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

199 F.2d 374

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1952-10-23
Topic: bankruptcy

PER CURIAM. This case was heard upon the record* briefs, and oral argument by counsel for respective parties; And the Court being of the opinion that additional findings of fact would provide a. better basis for the proper determination of the action; It is ordered that the judgment of the-Tax Court, 17 T.C. 538, be set aside and the case remanded to the Tax Court for additional findings of fact, including, but not: limited to, the following items, and for the-entry of a judgment based on the findings, as so supplemented or amended: 1. The primary intention of the taxpayer in constructing in 1943 and 1944 the-52 houses herein involved, and whether they-were constructed and held at the time of their construction for investment purposes., 2. If not so held for investment purposes, for what pmpose were they held in-. 1943 and in 1944. 3. If they were so held for investment-purposes, at what time, as nearly as can be ascertained, did such purpose change. 4.

Citator

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

Cited by: 9 opinions

WINNICK v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,199 F.2d 374(6th Cir. 1952)

Albert WINNICK, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent. Ida WINNICK, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent.

Nos. 11530, 11531.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

October 23, 1952.

Petition to Review Decision of Tax Court.

William C. Loud, George L. Cassidy, Detroit, Mich., for petitioners.

Charles S. Lyon, Ellis N. Slack, and Melva Graney, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Before HICKS, McALLISTER, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This case was heard upon the record, briefs, and oral argument by counsel for respective parties;

And the Court being of the opinion that additional findings of fact would provide a better basis for the proper determination of the action;

It is ordered that the judgment of the Tax Court,17 T.C. 538, be set aside and the case remanded to the Tax Court for additional findings of fact, including, but not limited to, the following items, and for the entry of a judgment based on the findings as so supplemented or amended:

1. The primary intention of the taxpayer in constructing in 1943 and 1944 the 52 houses herein involved, and whether they were constructed and held at the time of their construction for investment purposes.

2. If not so held for investment purposes, for what purpose were they held in 1943 and in 1944.

3. If they were so held for investment purposes, at what time, as nearly as can be ascertained, did such purpose change.

4. The facts, with dates as nearly as can be ascertained, with reference to the purchase or construction of the apartmentPage 375house in which the taxpayer decided to invest the proceeds of sale.

5. A general summary of the terms of the sales of the 52 houses, with reference to cash and deferred payments.

6. The use or disposition by the taxpayer of the proceeds from the sale of the 52 houses.

7. The method of financing the apartment house, used by the taxpayer.

8. The facts relative to the holding, use or disposition by the taxpayer of the apartment house after its acquisition or construction, up to the present time.

The parties hereto will be afforded an opportunity to introduce additional evidence on the issues involved in this action.