Alice L. Heath, Petitioner-on-review, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-on-review, 265 F.2d 662 (2d Cir. 1959)
Annotate this CaseWatson Washburn, New York City (Washburn & Gray, New York City, on the brief), for petitioner-on-review.
Charles B. E. Freeman, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson and Robert N. Anderson, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent-on-review.
Before MEDINA and HINCKS, Circuit Judgrs, and MATHES, District Judges, and MATHES, District
PER CURIAM.
We affirm on the findings of fact and opinion of Judge Atkins, 30 T.C. 339. The principles formulated by us in Newton v. Pedrick, 2 Cir., 1954, 212 F.2d 357, were the result of careful study and we see no occasion to modify them. Indeed, they were a development of a trend foreshadowed in Lerner v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 296. Nor are these views in any way altered by what appellant urges upon us as new matter, including the testimony of appellant in this proceeding, Treasury Regulations 111 (29.22(k)-1), promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and in force in 1943, 1944 and 1945, and later republished, and certain excerpts from the Senate and House Committee Reports on the 1954 Code (H.Rep. No. 1337, 83rd Cong.2d Sess., p. 9; Sen.Rep. No. 1622, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess., p. 10).
Affirmed.
---------------
1 United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
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.
