Beneficial Industrial Loan Corporation v. Handy

Third Circuit

Beneficial Industrial Loan Corporation v. Handy

92 F.2d 74, 20 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 219, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 4491

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedAugust 11, 1937

Docket6353

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 92 F.2d 74 (Beneficial Industrial Loan Corporation v. Handy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beneficial Industrial Loan Corporation v. Handy, 92 F.2d 74, 20 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 219, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 4491 (3d Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the court below, taxpayer, appellant, brought suit against the Revenue Collector to recover income taxes illegally, as contended, collected from it. By stipulation, jury was waived and the case tried by the judge, who found in favor of the collector. Thereupon taxpayer took this appeal. Reference to the opinion of the court, reported in (D.C.) 16 F.Supp. 110, avoids a present repetition of the facts and circumstances of the case.

The sole question involved is whether certain sums expended by the taxpayer for professional services rendered in the general examination and review of operations of certain companies taken over in a reorganization effective December 31, 1929, is deductible from gross income when paid either as an ordinary and necessary business expense incurred during the taxable year in carrying on its trade or business or as a loss sustained during the taxable year and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise.

After hearing and consideration, we are of opinion the court committed no error and that on its own reasoning and the cases of Simmons Co. v. Commissioner (C.C.A.) 33 F.(2d) 75, and Corning Glass Works v. Lucas, 59 App.D.C. 168, 37 F.(2d) 798, 68 A.L.R. 736, its judgment should be, and hereby is, affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the court below, taxpayer, appellant, brought suit against the Revenue Collector to recover income taxes illegally, as contended, collected from it. By stipulation, jury was waived and the case tried by the judge, who found in favor of the collector. Thereupon taxpayer took this appeal. Reference to the opinion of the court, reported in (D.C.) 16 F.Supp. 110, avoids a present repetition of the facts and circumstances of the case.

The sole question involved is whether certain sums expended by the taxpayer for professional services rendered in the general examination and review of operations of certain companies taken over in a reorganization effective December 31, 1929, is deductible from gross income when paid either as an ordinary and necessary business expense incurred during the taxable year in carrying on its trade or business or as a loss sustained during the taxable year and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise.

After hearing and consideration, we are of opinion the court committed no error and that on its own reasoning and the cases of Simmons Co. v. Commissioner (C.C.A.) 33 F.(2d) 75, and Corning Glass Works v. Lucas, 59 App.D.C. 168, 37 F.(2d) 798, 68 A.L.R. 736, its judgment should be, and hereby is, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 F.2d 74, 20 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 219, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 4491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beneficial-industrial-loan-corporation-v-handy-ca3-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack