Stokes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Fifth Circuit

Stokes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

197 F.2d 518, 42 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 43, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 4408

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 18, 1952

Docket13200_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 197 F.2d 518 (Stokes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stokes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 197 F.2d 518, 42 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 43, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 4408 (5th Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

RIVES, Circuit Judge.

After careful consideration of the record, and of the briefs and arguments, we are of opinion that the decision should be affirmed for the reasons adequately stated in the opinion of the Tax Court.

The taxpayers showed that they furnished whatever was required for the support of their two' grandchildren not provided out of the allotment received by the children’s mother of $72.00 per month, subsequently increased to $100.00 per month. The Tax Court held that, without further evidence, the taxpayers had failed to sustain the burden of proving that they furnished more than half of the amount expended for the support of those children. That holding is not inconsistent with the estimate of the Commissioner, approved by the Tax Court, that the taxpayers should be charged with $75.00 per week as cash withdrawals from the business for living expenses. Out of that *519 $75.00 per week had to come not only the living expenses of taxpayers, but also their contributions to the support of their two grandchildren. We cannot say that the Tax Court was clearly wrong in holding that such contributions were not proved to be more than half of the grandchildren’s support.

The decision of the Tax Court is therefore

Affirmed.

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

RIVES, Circuit Judge.

After careful consideration of the record, and of the briefs and arguments, we are of opinion that the decision should be affirmed for the reasons adequately stated in the opinion of the Tax Court.

The taxpayers showed that they furnished whatever was required for the support of their two' grandchildren not provided out of the allotment received by the children’s mother of $72.00 per month, subsequently increased to $100.00 per month. The Tax Court held that, without further evidence, the taxpayers had failed to sustain the burden of proving that they furnished more than half of the amount expended for the support of those children. That holding is not inconsistent with the estimate of the Commissioner, approved by the Tax Court, that the taxpayers should be charged with $75.00 per week as cash withdrawals from the business for living expenses. Out of that *519 $75.00 per week had to come not only the living expenses of taxpayers, but also their contributions to the support of their two grandchildren. We cannot say that the Tax Court was clearly wrong in holding that such contributions were not proved to be more than half of the grandchildren’s support.

The decision of the Tax Court is therefore

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 F.2d 518, 42 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 43, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 4408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stokes-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca5-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack