Estate of Leo P. Kaufman, Deceased, Alph C. Kaufman, and Estate of Ida W. Kaufman, Deceased, Alph C. Kaufman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

300 F.2d 128, 9 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 900
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 10, 1962
Docket14605
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 300 F.2d 128 (Estate of Leo P. Kaufman, Deceased, Alph C. Kaufman, and Estate of Ida W. Kaufman, Deceased, Alph C. Kaufman 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
Estate of Leo P. Kaufman, Deceased, Alph C. Kaufman, and Estate of Ida W. Kaufman, Deceased, Alph C. Kaufman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 300 F.2d 128, 9 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 900 (6th Cir. 1962).

Opinion

ORDER

This action is before the Court on petition for review of a decision of the Tax Court of the United States. Individual income taxes of Leo P. Kaufman in the amount of $1255.89 for the calendar year 1955 are involved.

The question presented is whether the taxpayer was entitled to exclude $5200 from his gross income for the year 1955 for “sick pay” under § 105 (d), Internal Revenue Code of 1954, (Sec. 105(d), Title 26 U.S.C.).

The case was submitted to the Court upon the record, the briefs of the parties and oral argument of counsel.

The facts which are not in dispute are accurately stated by Judge Bruce of the Tax Court and are reported in his Findings of Fact at 35 T.C. 663.

Upon consideration of the record, briefs and oral arguments, we find that the inferences drawn from the undisputed facts are warranted and not clearly erroneous. This Court will not reverse on findings of fact or inferences drawn therefrom unless they are clearly erroneous. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 80 S.Ct. 1190, 4 L.Ed.2d 1218.

Upon examination and consideration of the applicable sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and the authorities cited, we conclude that Judge Bruce correctly interpreted and applied the law to the facts as reported in his opinion at 35 T.C. 665.

For the reasons herein stated, it is ordered that the Decision of the Tax Court be and it is hereby affirmed.

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

Related

Hall v. Commissioner (In re Estate of Hall)
1996 T.C. Memo. 93 (U.S. Tax Court, 1996)
Frazier v. Commissioner
1994 T.C. Memo. 358 (U.S. Tax Court, 1994)
Burnside v. Commissioner
1994 T.C. Memo. 138 (U.S. Tax Court, 1994)
Gordon v. Commissioner
88 T.C. No. 34 (U.S. Tax Court, 1987)
Stewart and Lillian Caplin v. United States
718 F.2d 544 (Second Circuit, 1983)
Wigutow v. Commissioner
1983 T.C. Memo. 620 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)
Bongiovanni v. Commissioner
1976 T.C. Memo. 131 (U.S. Tax Court, 1976)
Estate of Leidy v. Commissioner
1975 T.C. Memo. 340 (U.S. Tax Court, 1975)
Laverty v. Commissioner
61 T.C. No. 20 (U.S. Tax Court, 1973)
American Foundry v. Commissioner
59 T.C. 231 (U.S. Tax Court, 1972)
Pickle v. Commissioner
1971 T.C. Memo. 304 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
Seidel v. Commissioner
1971 T.C. Memo. 238 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
Smith v. Commissioner
1970 T.C. Memo. 243 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)
Hatt v. Commissioner
1969 T.C. Memo. 229 (U.S. Tax Court, 1969)
Occhipinti v. Commissioner
1969 T.C. Memo. 191 (U.S. Tax Court, 1969)
Bogene, Inc. v. Comm'r
1968 T.C. Memo. 147 (U.S. Tax Court, 1968)
Levine v. Commissioner
50 T.C. 422 (U.S. Tax Court, 1968)
Larkin v. Commissioner
48 T.C. 629 (U.S. Tax Court, 1967)
Burr v. Commissioner
1966 T.C. Memo. 112 (U.S. Tax Court, 1966)
Niekamp v. United States
240 F. Supp. 195 (E.D. Missouri, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
300 F.2d 128, 9 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-leo-p-kaufman-deceased-alph-c-kaufman-and-estate-of-ida-w-ca6-1962.