Brand v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Sixth Circuit

Brand v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

209 F.2d 255, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 116, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 4440

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 14, 1953

Docket11869_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 209 F.2d 255 (Brand v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brand v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 209 F.2d 255, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 116, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 4440 (6th Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case having been considered by the Court on the record, briefs and oral argument on behalf of the respective parties;

And the Court being of the opinion that the ruling of the Tax Court that the $2,700 paid by petitioners for the purpose of protecting and perfecting the title to real estate in which the petitioners had an interest was a capital expenditure and not a deductible expense for income tax purposes under Section 23 (a) (1) or (2) or Section 23(e), Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A., was not erroneous; Safety Tube Corp. v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 168 F.2d 787, 789; Porter Royalty Pool v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 165 F.2d 933, 936; Jones’ Estate v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 127 F.2d 231; A. Giur-lani & Bro. v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 119 F.2d 852, 857.

It is ordered that the judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case having been considered by the Court on the record, briefs and oral argument on behalf of the respective parties;

And the Court being of the opinion that the ruling of the Tax Court that the $2,700 paid by petitioners for the purpose of protecting and perfecting the title to real estate in which the petitioners had an interest was a capital expenditure and not a deductible expense for income tax purposes under Section 23 (a) (1) or (2) or Section 23(e), Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A., was not erroneous; Safety Tube Corp. v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 168 F.2d 787, 789; Porter Royalty Pool v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 165 F.2d 933, 936; Jones’ Estate v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 127 F.2d 231; A. Giur-lani & Bro. v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 119 F.2d 852, 857.

It is ordered that the judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 F.2d 255, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 116, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 4440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brand-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca6-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack