Valentine Howell and Loretta B. Howell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Third Circuit

Valentine Howell and Loretta B. Howell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

332 F.2d 428, 13 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1554, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5262

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 26, 1964

Docket14751_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 332 F.2d 428 (Valentine Howell and Loretta B. Howell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Valentine Howell and Loretta B. Howell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 332 F.2d 428, 13 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1554, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5262 (3d Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this ease the Tax Court disallowed a deduction claimed by the petitioners on account of losses sustained by a theatrical agency, a partnership of the petitioner Valentine Howell and Miriam Howell Warren, his second cousin and sister-in-law. This decision was predicated upon a finding by the Tax Court that the taxpayer became a principal in the ill-fated partnership to help his relative and not primarily with a view to earning a profit through investing in a commercial venture.

We have recently pointed out that it “is the function of the Tax Court to weigh the evidence, draw the inferences of which the evidence is reasonably susceptible, and, if necessary, resolve conflicting inferences”, and that the “decision of the Tax Court, based upon its findings of fact, is conclusive unless it appears from an examination of the rec *429 ord that the findings of fact were clearly erroneous”. Carpenter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 3 Cir., 1963, 322 F.2d 733, 736. Having considered the entire record that was before the Tax Court, we are unable to say that its finding as to the primary purpose of the taxpayer Valentine Howell’s venture was clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, the decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this ease the Tax Court disallowed a deduction claimed by the petitioners on account of losses sustained by a theatrical agency, a partnership of the petitioner Valentine Howell and Miriam Howell Warren, his second cousin and sister-in-law. This decision was predicated upon a finding by the Tax Court that the taxpayer became a principal in the ill-fated partnership to help his relative and not primarily with a view to earning a profit through investing in a commercial venture.

We have recently pointed out that it “is the function of the Tax Court to weigh the evidence, draw the inferences of which the evidence is reasonably susceptible, and, if necessary, resolve conflicting inferences”, and that the “decision of the Tax Court, based upon its findings of fact, is conclusive unless it appears from an examination of the rec *429 ord that the findings of fact were clearly erroneous”. Carpenter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 3 Cir., 1963, 322 F.2d 733, 736. Having considered the entire record that was before the Tax Court, we are unable to say that its finding as to the primary purpose of the taxpayer Valentine Howell’s venture was clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, the decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 F.2d 428, 13 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1554, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valentine-howell-and-loretta-b-howell-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca3-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack