Samuel W. Meisel and Rose M. Meisel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Second Circuit

Samuel W. Meisel and Rose M. Meisel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

422 F.2d 1332, 25 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 921, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9976

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 3, 1970

Docket33525_1

StatusPublished

This text of 422 F.2d 1332 (Samuel W. Meisel and Rose M. Meisel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Samuel W. Meisel and Rose M. Meisel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 422 F.2d 1332, 25 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 921, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9976 (2d Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

422 F.2d 1332

Samuel W. MEISEL and Rose M. Meisel, Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 547.

Docket 33525.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 1970.

Decided April 3, 1970.

Appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court, Tannenwald, J., upholding the Commissioner's assessment of a deficiency.

Simon Presant, New York City, for appellants.

Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Department of Justice, Lee A. Jackson, Elmer J. Kelsey and Kenneth L. Gross, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, HAYS, Circuit Judge, and BLUMENFELD, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed on the strength of its memorandum opinion. 28 T.C.M. 141 (1969). There is ample support in the record for the tax court's factual determination that the sale by the mother to the daughter and the loans back were sham transactions.

Notes:

*

Sitting by designation

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