Yocum v. Rothensies

Third Circuit

Yocum v. Rothensies

87 F.2d 200, 18 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 754, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 2877

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedDecember 10, 1936

DocketNo. 6157

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 87 F.2d 200 (Yocum v. Rothensies) 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

Yocum v. Rothensies, 87 F.2d 200, 18 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 754, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 2877 (3d Cir. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A full consideration of this case satisfies us that both the issues involved were correctly decided by the court below. The opinion of Judge Kirkpatrick (In re Hoffman [D.C.] 16 F.Supp. 391), sets forth a satisfactory statement of the principles involved. We need only add that section 64a of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended (11 U. S.C.A. § 104(a), which authorizes the Bankruptcy Court to determine any question arising as to the amount, or’legality of a tax due and owing by the bankrupt, does not confer authority upon the court to waive the requirement of the Revenue Act (26 U.S.C.A. § 23 (k) that a bad debt, to be deductible from gross income, must be charged off by the taxpayer. To hold otherwise would be in effect to permit an amendment of the Revenue Act by the bankruptcy court. The decree is affirmed,

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

PER CURIAM.

A full consideration of this case satisfies us that both the issues involved were correctly decided by the court below. The opinion of Judge Kirkpatrick (In re Hoffman [D.C.] 16 F.Supp. 391), sets forth a satisfactory statement of the principles involved. We need only add that section 64a of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended (11 U. S.C.A. § 104(a), which authorizes the Bankruptcy Court to determine any question arising as to the amount, or’legality of a tax due and owing by the bankrupt, does not confer authority upon the court to waive the requirement of the Revenue Act (26 U.S.C.A. § 23 (k) that a bad debt, to be deductible from gross income, must be charged off by the taxpayer. To hold otherwise would be in effect to permit an amendment of the Revenue Act by the bankruptcy court. The decree is affirmed,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 F.2d 200, 18 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 754, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 2877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yocum-v-rothensies-ca3-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack