Hudson Engineering Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hudson et al, 183 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1950)
Annotate this CaseWalter E. Barton, Washington, D. C., for taxpayers.
Harry Marselli, Ellis N. Slack, Hilbert P. Zarky, Special Assistants to Attorney General, Theron L. Caudle, Assistant Attorney General, Charles Oliphant, Chief Counsel, Bernard D. Daniels, Special Attorney, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Washington, D. C., for Commissioner.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and McCORD and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the record, the briefs and the oral argument, it appears that the Tax Court by its findings of fact and opinion correctly adjudged Hudson Engineering Corporation was required to accrue additional income in the taxable year, and that Edward J. Hudson possessed an economic interest in the specified minerals in place which entitled him to a deduction for depletion. 11 T.C. 1042.
The determinations of the Tax Court are
Affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
