Frank S. Norcross, Thomas M. Farr and Margaret Hundley Farr v. United States

Third Circuit

Frank S. Norcross, Thomas M. Farr and Margaret Hundley Farr v. United States

222 F.2d 209, 47 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 845, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 5138

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedApril 29, 1955

Docket11497

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 222 F.2d 209 (Frank S. Norcross, Thomas M. Farr and Margaret Hundley Farr v. United States) 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

Frank S. Norcross, Thomas M. Farr and Margaret Hundley Farr v. United States, 222 F.2d 209, 47 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 845, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 5138 (3d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an income tax case. The appellants sue to recover taxes for the years 1942-1943 which they say were erroneously paid to the government. The case turns upon the question whether Section 107(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C. § 107(a), gives the plaintiffs rights. This, in turn, depends upon the nature of the employment of two of the plaintiffs, members of the bar, for *210 legal representation of certain trusts and estates.

The' trial court concluded that the nature of the employment did not establish a case for the plaintiffs. Because the conclusion rests upon a fact finding as to the nature of their employment by clients, it is within Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C., and is not to be. reversed unless clearly erroneous. We do not find it clearly erroneous. Indeed, the whole matter was so thoroughly and clearly analyzed by Judge Madden in the district court that we are content to affirm on the basis of his opinion reported in D.C.N.J.1953, 114 F.Supp. 51.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an income tax case. The appellants sue to recover taxes for the years 1942-1943 which they say were erroneously paid to the government. The case turns upon the question whether Section 107(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C. § 107(a), gives the plaintiffs rights. This, in turn, depends upon the nature of the employment of two of the plaintiffs, members of the bar, for *210 legal representation of certain trusts and estates.

The' trial court concluded that the nature of the employment did not establish a case for the plaintiffs. Because the conclusion rests upon a fact finding as to the nature of their employment by clients, it is within Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C., and is not to be. reversed unless clearly erroneous. We do not find it clearly erroneous. Indeed, the whole matter was so thoroughly and clearly analyzed by Judge Madden in the district court that we are content to affirm on the basis of his opinion reported in D.C.N.J.1953, 114 F.Supp. 51.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 F.2d 209, 47 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 845, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 5138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-s-norcross-thomas-m-farr-and-margaret-hundley-farr-v-united-ca3-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack