The Akron Dry Goods Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Sixth Circuit

The Akron Dry Goods Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

218 F.2d 290

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 17, 1954

Docket11951

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 218 F.2d 290 (The Akron Dry Goods Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) 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

The Akron Dry Goods Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 218 F.2d 290 (6th Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The above cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record, the briefs of the parties, and the argument of counsel in open court. It appears that the findings in the opinion of the Tax Court are supported by evidence which, in the language of Helvering v. F. & R. Lazarus & Co., 308 U.S. 252, 255, 60 S.Ct. 209, 84 L.Ed. 226, permits, at most, conflicting inferences, and are, therefore, conclusive here; that such findings that the land trust certificate transaction here involved was a sale, and not a mortgage to secure a loan, were, accordingly, sustained by the evidence, and are not clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

With regard to the computation of petitioner’s equity invested capital, the determination of the Tax Court is set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the holding of the court in Crean Bros. v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 195 F.2d 257. In all other respects, the findings of the Tax Court are affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The above cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record, the briefs of the parties, and the argument of counsel in open court. It appears that the findings in the opinion of the Tax Court are supported by evidence which, in the language of Helvering v. F. & R. Lazarus & Co., 308 U.S. 252, 255, 60 S.Ct. 209, 84 L.Ed. 226, permits, at most, conflicting inferences, and are, therefore, conclusive here; that such findings that the land trust certificate transaction here involved was a sale, and not a mortgage to secure a loan, were, accordingly, sustained by the evidence, and are not clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

With regard to the computation of petitioner’s equity invested capital, the determination of the Tax Court is set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the holding of the court in Crean Bros. v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 195 F.2d 257. In all other respects, the findings of the Tax Court are affirmed.

Local Union 984, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Labor Organization v. Humko Company, Inc. (A Division of National Dairy Products Corporation), Local Union 984, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Labor Organization v. Ralph Kent Phillipy, Local Union 984, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Afl-Cio, an Unincorporated Labor Organization v. Kuhne-Simmons Company, Inc., an Illinois Crporation

287 F.2d 231 (Sixth Circuit, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 F.2d 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-akron-dry-goods-company-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca6-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack