Puritan Church of America v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.puritan Church Bldg. Fund v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 209 F.2d 306 (D.C. Cir. 1953)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 209 F.2d 306 (D.C. Cir. 1953) Argued October 16, 1953
Decided November 5, 1953
Petition for Rehearing in Banc Denied December 11, 1953

Mr. Roy St. Lewis, Washington, D. C., for petitioners.

Mr. Harry Baum, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for respondent.

Mr. Rollin H. Transue, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for respondent.

Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN and FAHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.


These are petitions for review of decisions of the Tax Court of the United States, which sustained deficiencies in income taxes proposed against the petitioners, and also sustained proposed penalties. The Puritan Church of America — The Church of America — claimed to be exempt from income taxes as a corporation organized and operated exclusively for religious purposes.1  The liability against the Puritan Church Building Fund was proposed and sustained as a liability of a transferee of property of a taxpayer, that is, the Puritan Church of America.2  The penalties were against the Church and were for failure to file a return3  and for fraud with intent to evade the tax.4  Solution of the controversy depended upon findings of facts. The Tax Court made findings in great detail and rendered a careful opinion. Upon examination of the record we conclude that the findings are supported by ample substantial evidence. We find no error in any other respect.

Affirmed.

 1

Int.Rev.Code § 101, 26 U.S.C.A. § 101

 2

Id. § 311(a) (1)

 3

Id. § 291

 4

Id. § 293

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.