Hoover, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Sixth Circuit

Hoover, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

474 F.2d 1050, 31 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 945, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11439

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 27, 1973

Docket72-1775

StatusPublished

This text of 474 F.2d 1050 (Hoover, Inc. 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

Hoover, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 474 F.2d 1050, 31 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 945, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11439 (6th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This is an appeal from the Tax Court’s holding that the appellant in substance acted merely as a conduit by which its controlling shareholder, as guarantor of a loan, paid the debt owed by John L. Burns, Inc. to a bank, and, therefore, the appellant taxpayer was not entitled to any deduction arising out of the transaction. Clearly, our review of tax court decisions is the same as the standard applied in the review of District Court decisions. Kunz v. C. I. R., 333 F.2d 556 (6th Cir. 1964). In its opinion (T.C. Memo. 1972-54), the Tax Court stated:

“Also, petitioner and Hot Mix, both wholly owned by Hoover, were guarantors of this debt [the debt which gave rise to the claimed deductions].”

To this extent the Tax Court’s opinion is clearly erroneous. It appears affirmatively that the petitioner-appellant was not a guarantor of the debt in question. In all other respects we conclude that we cannot find the Tax *1051 Court’s findings of fact to be clearly erroneous. The law was properly applied.

Now, therefore, 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

ORDER

This is an appeal from the Tax Court’s holding that the appellant in substance acted merely as a conduit by which its controlling shareholder, as guarantor of a loan, paid the debt owed by John L. Burns, Inc. to a bank, and, therefore, the appellant taxpayer was not entitled to any deduction arising out of the transaction. Clearly, our review of tax court decisions is the same as the standard applied in the review of District Court decisions. Kunz v. C. I. R., 333 F.2d 556 (6th Cir. 1964). In its opinion (T.C. Memo. 1972-54), the Tax Court stated:

“Also, petitioner and Hot Mix, both wholly owned by Hoover, were guarantors of this debt [the debt which gave rise to the claimed deductions].”

To this extent the Tax Court’s opinion is clearly erroneous. It appears affirmatively that the petitioner-appellant was not a guarantor of the debt in question. In all other respects we conclude that we cannot find the Tax *1051 Court’s findings of fact to be clearly erroneous. The law was properly applied.

Now, therefore, it is ordered that the decision of the Tax Court be and it is hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 F.2d 1050, 31 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 945, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoover-inc-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca6-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack