Chester Distributing Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Cooper v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Third Circuit

Chester Distributing Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Cooper v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

184 F.2d 514, 39 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1080, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3406

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedOctober 10, 1950

Docket10179_1

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 184 F.2d 514 (Chester Distributing Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Cooper v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) 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

Chester Distributing Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Cooper v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 184 F.2d 514, 39 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1080, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3406 (3d Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these appeals the taxpayers complain of the failure of the Tax Court to allow the amounts claimed as deductions for ordinary and necessary business expenses for the tax years in question. Int. Rev.Code, § 23(a) (1) (A), 26 U.S.C.A. § 23(a) (1) (A). The individual appellant is an officer and chief salesman of the corporate defendant, a beer distributor. The Tax Court allowed some of the amounts claimed, but not, according to the taxpayers, as much as they were entitled to. The questions presented are questions of fact. We are entitled to reverse the Tax Court on questions of fact if its findings are clearly erroneous, but not because of our disagreement with it on a particular factual issue. Int.Rev.Code, § 1141(a), 26 U.S.C.A. § 1141(a); Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A.

It may well be that a question of what is “ordinary and necessary” in a business man’s expenditures is not a subject ■appropriate for litigation. But it is there and some court must pass on it. The Tax Court having done so, there is nothing for an appellate court to review when the conclusion has evidence to support it, as it has here.

The decisions of the Tax Court will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In these appeals the taxpayers complain of the failure of the Tax Court to allow the amounts claimed as deductions for ordinary and necessary business expenses for the tax years in question. Int. Rev.Code, § 23(a) (1) (A), 26 U.S.C.A. § 23(a) (1) (A). The individual appellant is an officer and chief salesman of the corporate defendant, a beer distributor. The Tax Court allowed some of the amounts claimed, but not, according to the taxpayers, as much as they were entitled to. The questions presented are questions of fact. We are entitled to reverse the Tax Court on questions of fact if its findings are clearly erroneous, but not because of our disagreement with it on a particular factual issue. Int.Rev.Code, § 1141(a), 26 U.S.C.A. § 1141(a); Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A.

It may well be that a question of what is “ordinary and necessary” in a business man’s expenditures is not a subject ■appropriate for litigation. But it is there and some court must pass on it. The Tax Court having done so, there is nothing for an appellate court to review when the conclusion has evidence to support it, as it has here.

The decisions of the Tax Court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 F.2d 514, 39 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1080, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chester-distributing-co-inc-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-cooper-ca3-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack