Seattle Brewing & Malting Co. v. Commissioner

Ninth Circuit

Seattle Brewing & Malting Co. v. Commissioner

166 F.2d 326

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 18, 1948

DocketNo. 11467

StatusPublished

This text of 166 F.2d 326 (Seattle Brewing & Malting Co. v. Commissioner) 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

Seattle Brewing & Malting Co. v. Commissioner, 166 F.2d 326 (9th Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner urges that the Tax Court did no more than construe the terms of an undisputed contract for the licensing of the use of the name “Rainier” in its brewing business in the State .of Washington. We do not agree. The findings and opinion disclose that the facts adduced at the hearing and by stipulation of the character of the business prior to and during the existence of the contract and of the objectives of the respective boards of directors of the two contracting parties, were an essential part of the adjudicating process of the Tax Court in reaching its decision. What we said in denying the petition for rehearing in Commissioner v. Rainier Brewing Co., 9 Cir., 166 F.2d 324, here applies. This is clearly the class of case described in Commissioner v. Scottish American Inv. Co., 323 U.S. 119, 125, 65 S.Ct. 169, 172, 89 L.Ed. 113, "The decision as to the facts in this case, like analogous ones that preceded it, is of little value as precedent. The factual pattern is too decisive and too varied from case to case to warrant a great expenditure of appellate court energy on unravelling conflicting factual inferences. The skilled judgment of the Tax Court, which is the basic fact-finding and inference-making body, should thus be given wide range in such proceedings.”

The petition for rehearing is denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner urges that the Tax Court did no more than construe the terms of an undisputed contract for the licensing of the use of the name “Rainier” in its brewing business in the State .of Washington. We do not agree. The findings and opinion disclose that the facts adduced at the hearing and by stipulation of the character of the business prior to and during the existence of the contract and of the objectives of the respective boards of directors of the two contracting parties, were an essential part of the adjudicating process of the Tax Court in reaching its decision. What we said in denying the petition for rehearing in Commissioner v. Rainier Brewing Co., 9 Cir., 166 F.2d 324, here applies. This is clearly the class of case described in Commissioner v. Scottish American Inv. Co., 323 U.S. 119, 125, 65 S.Ct. 169, 172, 89 L.Ed. 113, "The decision as to the facts in this case, like analogous ones that preceded it, is of little value as precedent. The factual pattern is too decisive and too varied from case to case to warrant a great expenditure of appellate court energy on unravelling conflicting factual inferences. The skilled judgment of the Tax Court, which is the basic fact-finding and inference-making body, should thus be given wide range in such proceedings.”

The petition for rehearing is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 F.2d 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seattle-brewing-malting-co-v-commissioner-ca9-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack