Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Morris Schnitzer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Morris Schnitzer v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 212 F.2d 437 (9th Cir. 1954)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1954-05-10
Topic
bankruptcy

PER CURIAM. These matters are here on petition to review a decision of the Tax Court. The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed on the ground and for the reasons given in its opinion, reported in full in Prentice-Hall, Federal Tax Service, 1953, § 53,-080.1 . See also Sam Schnitzer v. Commissioner, 1949, 13 T.C. 43, affirmed per curiam by this Court, 183 F.2d 70, certiorari denied, 340 U.S. 911, 71 S.Ct. 291, 95 L.Ed. 658.

Citator

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

Cited by
2 opinions
SCHNITZER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,212 F.2d 437(9th Cir. 1954)
Morris SCHNITZER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
No. 13867.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
May 10, 1954.
Petition to Review a Decision of The Tax Court of the United States.
S.J. Bischoff, Robert T. Jacob, Portland, Ore., for petitioner.

H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Robert N. Anderson, Morton K. Rothschild, Charles K. Rice, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., Charles W. Davis, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Before STEPHENS, HEALY, and POPE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
These matters are here on petition to review a decision of the Tax Court. The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed on the ground and for the reasons given in its opinion, reported in full in Prentice-Hall, Federal Tax Service, 1953, § 53,080.1Page 438
POPE, Circuit Judge.
I concur. Appellant argues that this case is not governed by the Sam Schnitzer case,13 T.C. 43, affirmed by this court at 183 F.2d 70, because here appellant's payment was not to Oregon Steel, but to Alaska Junk. Hence, he says, it could not be a contribution to the former's capital, particularly since he did not pay it until after his stock was sold. I think the Tax Court could properly view the transaction as one in which, pursuant to understanding, Alaska first made the advances, as contributions, on appellant's behalf, and appellant's payments were merely to reimburse Alaska. This finding of the Tax Court cannot be disturbed by us.Page 448
  1. See also Sam Schnitzer v. Commissioner, 1949,13 T.C. 43, affirmed per curiam by this Court, 183 F.2d 70, certiorari denied,340 U.S. 911, 71 S.Ct. 291, 95 L.Ed. 658. ↩