Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
J. LANDIS SHOE COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 1929 — 34 F.2d 1020 · caselaw · US
Tax
J. LANDIS SHOE COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
34 F.2d 1020·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1929
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
J. LANDIS SHOE COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
September 4, 1929.
No. 4008.
Earle W. Walliek and Ben Jenkins, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key and Andrew D. Sharpe, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., and C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, and D. V. Hunter, Sp. Asst., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.]
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals. No principles of taxation of general interest are involved, and the ease depends on its own particular facts growing .out of the. exchange of the capital stoek of one company for the stock of another, and an agreement that the profit realized from the sale of the finished goods the Landis Company had on hand should be prorated and a proper share allocated to the Landis shareholders. The entire facts and all phases of the case are stated, dismissed and disposed of in the opinion of the Tax Board. Finding no error, therefore, and regarding an opinion of this court as necessarily but a restatement, we limit ourselves to affirming the judgment of the Tax Board.