Ruschmann v. United States

D. New Jersey

Ruschmann v. United States

162 F. Supp. 661, 1 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2047, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4144

CourtDistrict Court, D. New Jersey

DecidedMay 29, 1958

DocketCiv. A. 1010-56

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 F. Supp. 661 (Ruschmann v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ruschmann v. United States, 162 F. Supp. 661, 1 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2047, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4144 (D.N.J. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

WORTENDYKE, District Judge.

In this case plaintiff Henry Rusch-mann was an equal partner with Henry Goetz in the firm of Goetz and Rusch-mann (G & R) and claimed as a deduction from gross income for the taxable year 1952 one-half of the $5,000. paid by that firm to Franz Mueller und Sohn (Mueller), of Bielefeld, Germany. The facts in this case, therefore, are in all respects similar with those in Goetz v. United States, D.C., 162 F.Supp. 657, except for the offset claimed by the Government against Ruschmann, in the amount of $1,350.

For the reasons stated, therefore, in my opinion in Goetz v. United States, supra, filed May 29, 1958, defendant is entitled to judgment in this case for its costs. The opinion in Goetz aforesaid shall also be in lieu of the required findings of fact and conclusions of law in this case. An order may be presented in accordance with this determination.

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

WORTENDYKE, District Judge.

In this case plaintiff Henry Rusch-mann was an equal partner with Henry Goetz in the firm of Goetz and Rusch-mann (G & R) and claimed as a deduction from gross income for the taxable year 1952 one-half of the $5,000. paid by that firm to Franz Mueller und Sohn (Mueller), of Bielefeld, Germany. The facts in this case, therefore, are in all respects similar with those in Goetz v. United States, D.C., 162 F.Supp. 657, except for the offset claimed by the Government against Ruschmann, in the amount of $1,350.

For the reasons stated, therefore, in my opinion in Goetz v. United States, supra, filed May 29, 1958, defendant is entitled to judgment in this case for its costs. The opinion in Goetz aforesaid shall also be in lieu of the required findings of fact and conclusions of law in this case. An order may be presented in accordance with this determination.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 F. Supp. 661, 1 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2047, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruschmann-v-united-states-njd-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack