Camp Concrete Rock Company v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Camp Concrete Rock Company v. United States

276 F.2d 211, 5 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1123, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5039

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 25, 1960

Docket17929_1

StatusPublished

This text of 276 F.2d 211 (Camp Concrete Rock Company v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Camp Concrete Rock Company v. United States, 276 F.2d 211, 5 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1123, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5039 (5th Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a judgment denying recovery of income taxes for the years 1951, 1952 and 1953, tests for error the findings and conclusions of the District Judge 1 and the judgment based thereon.

It presents the single question whether the District Court erred in finding that the taxpayer had failed to meet its bur *212 den of showing the incorrectness of the Commissioner’s determination: that the taxpayer had sold its stone to Florida Crushed Stone Company, which in turn sold the stone to its customers; and that its gross income for purposes of computing percentage depletion, under Sec. 114 (b) (3), I.R.C.1939, 26 U.S.C.A. § 114(b) (3), was the amount taxpayer received from Florida Crushed Stone Company rather than the amount Florida received from its customers.

In complete agreement with the District Judge’s handling and disposition of the case, we affirm his judgment for the reasons stated by him.

Affirmed.

1

. Camp Concrete Rock Company v. United States, 181 F.Supp. 806.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a judgment denying recovery of income taxes for the years 1951, 1952 and 1953, tests for error the findings and conclusions of the District Judge 1 and the judgment based thereon.

It presents the single question whether the District Court erred in finding that the taxpayer had failed to meet its bur *212 den of showing the incorrectness of the Commissioner’s determination: that the taxpayer had sold its stone to Florida Crushed Stone Company, which in turn sold the stone to its customers; and that its gross income for purposes of computing percentage depletion, under Sec. 114 (b) (3), I.R.C.1939, 26 U.S.C.A. § 114(b) (3), was the amount taxpayer received from Florida Crushed Stone Company rather than the amount Florida received from its customers.

In complete agreement with the District Judge’s handling and disposition of the case, we affirm his judgment for the reasons stated by him.

Affirmed.

1

. Camp Concrete Rock Company v. United States, 181 F.Supp. 806.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 F.2d 211, 5 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1123, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camp-concrete-rock-company-v-united-states-ca5-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack