Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Charavay

Third Circuit

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Charavay

79 F.2d 406, 16 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 672, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 4126

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedSeptember 9, 1935

DocketNo. 5733

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 79 F.2d 406 (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Charavay) 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

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Charavay, 79 F.2d 406, 16 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 672, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 4126 (3d Cir. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

The question involved in this case is whether there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the partnership of Stevens and Legg, of which the respondent was a member, was a dealer in securities during the years 1929 and 1930, and therefore entitled to the use of inventories in computing its income for those years. The Commissioner held against the taxpayer; the Tax Board in his favor. In so doing the Tax Board discussed in detail the situation in its reversing opinion, and reference thereto saves needless repetition. It grasped and decided the gist of the case as follows: “In our opinion, however, the controlling factor here is not the method by which the partnership obtained’ customers or made sales. It is the fact that the partnership purchased securities and held them not for investment or speculation, but for resale at a profit to anyone who" desired to buy.”

Finding no error in the Board’s action, we limit ourselves to approving the same.

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

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

The question involved in this case is whether there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the partnership of Stevens and Legg, of which the respondent was a member, was a dealer in securities during the years 1929 and 1930, and therefore entitled to the use of inventories in computing its income for those years. The Commissioner held against the taxpayer; the Tax Board in his favor. In so doing the Tax Board discussed in detail the situation in its reversing opinion, and reference thereto saves needless repetition. It grasped and decided the gist of the case as follows: “In our opinion, however, the controlling factor here is not the method by which the partnership obtained’ customers or made sales. It is the fact that the partnership purchased securities and held them not for investment or speculation, but for resale at a profit to anyone who" desired to buy.”

Finding no error in the Board’s action, we limit ourselves to approving the same.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 F.2d 406, 16 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 672, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 4126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioner-of-internal-revenue-v-charavay-ca3-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack