Adda v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Fourth Circuit

Adda v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

171 F.2d 457, 37 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 654, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 3815

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 3, 1948

Docket5796

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 171 F.2d 457 (Adda v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adda v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 171 F.2d 457, 37 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 654, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 3815 (4th Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

.This is a petition by a non-resident alien to review a decision of the Tax Court. Petitioner is a national of Egypt, who in the year 1941 was residing in France. He had a brother who at that time was residing in the United States and who traded for petitioner’s benefit on commodity exchanges in the United States in cotton, wool, grains, silk, hides and copper. This trading was authorized by petitioner who vested full discretion in his brother with regard thereto, and it resulted in profits in the sum of $193,857.14. The Tax Court said: “While the number of transactions or the total amount of money involved in them has not been stated, it is apparent that many transactions were effected through' different brokers, several accounts ■were maintained, and gains and losses in substantial amounts were realized. This evidence shows that the trading was extensive enough to amount to a trade or business, and the petitioner does not contend, nor has he shown, that the transactions were so infrequent or inconsequential as not to amount to a trade or business.” 'We agree with the Tax Court that, for reasons adequately set forth in its opinion, this income was subject to taxation, and that the exemption of a non-resident alien’s commodity transactions in the United States, provided by section 211 (b) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 211(b), does not apply to a case where the alien has an agent in the United States using his own discretion in effecting the transactions for the alien’s account. As said by the Tax Court, “Through such transactions the alien is engaging in trade or business within the United States, and the profits on these transactions are capital gains taxable to him.” Nothing need be added to the reasoning of the Tax Court in this connection, and the decision will be affirmed on its opinion.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

.This is a petition by a non-resident alien to review a decision of the Tax Court. Petitioner is a national of Egypt, who in the year 1941 was residing in France. He had a brother who at that time was residing in the United States and who traded for petitioner’s benefit on commodity exchanges in the United States in cotton, wool, grains, silk, hides and copper. This trading was authorized by petitioner who vested full discretion in his brother with regard thereto, and it resulted in profits in the sum of $193,857.14. The Tax Court said: “While the number of transactions or the total amount of money involved in them has not been stated, it is apparent that many transactions were effected through' different brokers, several accounts ■were maintained, and gains and losses in substantial amounts were realized. This evidence shows that the trading was extensive enough to amount to a trade or business, and the petitioner does not contend, nor has he shown, that the transactions were so infrequent or inconsequential as not to amount to a trade or business.” 'We agree with the Tax Court that, for reasons adequately set forth in its opinion, this income was subject to taxation, and that the exemption of a non-resident alien’s commodity transactions in the United States, provided by section 211 (b) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 211(b), does not apply to a case where the alien has an agent in the United States using his own discretion in effecting the transactions for the alien’s account. As said by the Tax Court, “Through such transactions the alien is engaging in trade or business within the United States, and the profits on these transactions are capital gains taxable to him.” Nothing need be added to the reasoning of the Tax Court in this connection, and the decision will be affirmed on its opinion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 F.2d 457, 37 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 654, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 3815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adda-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca4-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack