Harry G. Gianakon and Helen L. Gianakon v. Commissioner of Internal Rev. Enue

Third Circuit

Harry G. Gianakon and Helen L. Gianakon v. Commissioner of Internal Rev. Enue

358 F.2d 731, 17 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 753, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6582

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedApril 6, 1966

Docket15637_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 358 F.2d 731 (Harry G. Gianakon and Helen L. Gianakon v. Commissioner of Internal Rev. Enue) 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

Harry G. Gianakon and Helen L. Gianakon v. Commissioner of Internal Rev. Enue, 358 F.2d 731, 17 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 753, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6582 (3d Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

*732 PER CURIAM.

This matter is before this Court on a petition to review a decision of the Tax Court in which it was held that certain expenditures for educational purposes were not deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses under § 162 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 162(a) and § 1.162-5(b) of the Treasury Regulations, 26 C.F.R., § 1.162-5. The only question for our decision is whether there exists in the record an adequate evidentiary basis for the decision. Cleveland v. C.I.R., 335 F.2d 473 (3rd Cir. 1964) and the cases therein cited. Upon an examination of the record we are convinced that the Tax Court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and its conclusion is in accord with the law.

The decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.

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

*732 PER CURIAM.

This matter is before this Court on a petition to review a decision of the Tax Court in which it was held that certain expenditures for educational purposes were not deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses under § 162 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 162(a) and § 1.162-5(b) of the Treasury Regulations, 26 C.F.R., § 1.162-5. The only question for our decision is whether there exists in the record an adequate evidentiary basis for the decision. Cleveland v. C.I.R., 335 F.2d 473 (3rd Cir. 1964) and the cases therein cited. Upon an examination of the record we are convinced that the Tax Court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and its conclusion is in accord with the law.

The decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 F.2d 731, 17 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 753, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harry-g-gianakon-and-helen-l-gianakon-v-commissioner-of-internal-rev-ca3-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack