Sydney G. Dyer, M. D., and Zanna Dyer v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Sydney G. Dyer, M. D., and Zanna Dyer v. United States

289 F.2d 606, 7 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1322, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4664

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 28, 1961

Docket14376

StatusPublished

This text of 289 F.2d 606 (Sydney G. Dyer, M. D., and Zanna Dyer v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sydney G. Dyer, M. D., and Zanna Dyer v. United States, 289 F.2d 606, 7 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1322, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4664 (6th Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER.

On this appeal, the taxpayer (a doctor), sought to bring his operating loss on a hospital, or clinic, which he operated in connection with his medical practice, within the carry-forward-to-later-years loss allowance. The Commissioner allowed a deduction for the loss from the hospital’s operation only for the current year in which the loss occurred and was sustained by the United States District Judge in this ruling.

We think that, for the reasons well stated by Judge Shelbourne in his memorandum opinion, findings of fact and conclusions of law, the judgment of the United States District Court should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

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

ORDER.

On this appeal, the taxpayer (a doctor), sought to bring his operating loss on a hospital, or clinic, which he operated in connection with his medical practice, within the carry-forward-to-later-years loss allowance. The Commissioner allowed a deduction for the loss from the hospital’s operation only for the current year in which the loss occurred and was sustained by the United States District Judge in this ruling.

We think that, for the reasons well stated by Judge Shelbourne in his memorandum opinion, findings of fact and conclusions of law, the judgment of the United States District Court should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 F.2d 606, 7 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1322, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sydney-g-dyer-m-d-and-zanna-dyer-v-united-states-ca6-1961.