Paul Lustig v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Halina Lustig

Ninth Circuit

Paul Lustig v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Halina Lustig

274 F.2d 448

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 1960

Docket16415

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 274 F.2d 448 (Paul Lustig v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Halina Lustig) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paul Lustig v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Halina Lustig, 274 F.2d 448 (9th Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We think that the findings of fact of the Tax Court are not clearly erroneous, and since we are in full accord with the statement of the law expressed in the decision of the Tax Court which is reported at 30 T.C. 926, the decision of the Tax Court is affirmed.

We cannot agree with the contention of the petitioner Lustig that the rule laid down in Thomas Lovett, 18 T.C. 477, is not still the law. As counsel for the Commissioner has pointed out, when § 214 of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 214, was added, Congress intended to give a taxpayer in the position of Halina Lustig a tax benefit in addition to the exemption for a dependent. Now to hold that by § 214 the rule of the Lovett case was no longer valid would amount to saying that when Con *449 gress granted the rights set forth in § 214 it automatically withdrew from Mrs. Lustig rights which she theretofore had to claim the dependency exemption.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We think that the findings of fact of the Tax Court are not clearly erroneous, and since we are in full accord with the statement of the law expressed in the decision of the Tax Court which is reported at 30 T.C. 926, the decision of the Tax Court is affirmed.

We cannot agree with the contention of the petitioner Lustig that the rule laid down in Thomas Lovett, 18 T.C. 477, is not still the law. As counsel for the Commissioner has pointed out, when § 214 of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 214, was added, Congress intended to give a taxpayer in the position of Halina Lustig a tax benefit in addition to the exemption for a dependent. Now to hold that by § 214 the rule of the Lovett case was no longer valid would amount to saying that when Con *449 gress granted the rights set forth in § 214 it automatically withdrew from Mrs. Lustig rights which she theretofore had to claim the dependency exemption.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 F.2d 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-lustig-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-commissioner-of-internal-ca9-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack