Strom v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
158 F.2d 520
This text of 158 F.2d 520 (Strom v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE) 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
Strom v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 158 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1947).
Opinion
Charles STROM and Flora Strom, Petitioners,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
L. L. Thompson and L. B. Donley, both of Tacoma, Wash., for petitioner.
Sewall Key, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. Louis Monarch, Carlton Fox, and Newton Fox, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before MATHEWS, STEPHENS, and ORR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
For the reasons stated in its opinion (6 T.C. 621), the decision of the Tax Court is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Strom v. Commissioner
6 T.C. 621 (U.S. Tax Court, 1946)
Strom v. Commissioner
158 F.2d 520 (Ninth Circuit, 1947)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
158 F.2d 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strom-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca9-1947.