Kaufman Department Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner

Third Circuit

Kaufman Department Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner

34 F.2d 257, 7 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 9315, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3228, 7 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 9315

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedAugust 9, 1929

DocketNo. 4029

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 F.2d 257 (Kaufman Department Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner) 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

Kaufman Department Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner, 34 F.2d 257, 7 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 9315, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3228, 7 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 9315 (3d Cir. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This tax case involves the ascertainment of the meaning and effect of a lengthy contract made by the taxpayer with a manager for compensation dependent on five years’ service and the profit inuring at the end of the term to the taxpayer as a result of such service. The ease turns on the terms of this particular contract. The facts of the ease and the individual features of the agreement are fully set forth in the findings and opinion of the Tax Board, and by reference thereto we avoid needless repetition.

Finding no error in the decree of the Board, we limit ourselves to approving its action.

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

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This tax case involves the ascertainment of the meaning and effect of a lengthy contract made by the taxpayer with a manager for compensation dependent on five years’ service and the profit inuring at the end of the term to the taxpayer as a result of such service. The ease turns on the terms of this particular contract. The facts of the ease and the individual features of the agreement are fully set forth in the findings and opinion of the Tax Board, and by reference thereto we avoid needless repetition.

Finding no error in the decree of the Board, we limit ourselves to approving its action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 F.2d 257, 7 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 9315, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3228, 7 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 9315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaufman-department-stores-inc-v-commissioner-ca3-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack