E. C. Newsom and Beatrice D. Newsom, Petitioners, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent, 219 F.2d 444 (5th Cir. 1955)
Annotate this CasePetition for Review of Decision of The Tax Court of the United States (District of Florida).
William R. Frazier, James P. Hill, Jacksonville, Fla., Hill & Frazier, Jacksonville, Fla., for petitioners.
Robert B. Ross, Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel A. Taylor, Ch. Counsel, Rollin H. Transue, Sp. Atty., Washington, D. C., Int. Rev. Serv., for respondent.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and RIVES and TUTTLE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The decision is affirmed on the opinion of the Tax Court, 22 T.C. 225, followed in Davis v. Dudley, D.C.W.D. Pa., 124 F. Supp. 426, 429, by District Judge Marsh, one of the judges who had joined in deciding United States v. Erie Forge Co., 3 Cir., 191 F.2d 627, thought by the petitioner to be in conflict with the decision of the Tax Court.1
Affirmed.
See also United States v. Koppers Co. (Premier Oil Refining Co. v. United States), 1955, 348 U.S. ____, 75 S. Ct. 268; Stephan v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 197 F.2d 712; Middleton v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 200 F.2d 94; Maxwell v. Campbell, 5 Cir., 205 F.2d 461; Eck v. Commissioner, 16 T.C. 511, affirmed per curiam, 2 Cir., 202 F.2d 750; Bouche v. Commissioner, 18 T.C. 144, on appeal now to 2 Cir.; Smith v. Commissioner, 20 T.C. 663
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.