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.
BEAR CANON COAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. David BURNET, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Appellee, 1932 — 61 F.2d 1017 · caselaw · US
Tax
BEAR CANON COAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. David BURNET, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Appellee
61 F.2d 1017·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·1932
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
BEAR CANON COAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. David BURNET, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Appellee.
No. 5051.
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Argued April 8, 1931.
Decided May 16, 1932.
H. Kennedy McCook, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, Andrew D. Sharpe, and G. M. Charest, all of Washington, D. C., for appel-lee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — GRONER, Associate Justice.]
GRONER, Associate Justice.
This ease was submitted along with No. 5115 [Coronado Oil & Gas Co. v. David Burnet, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 60 App. D. C. 233, 50 F.(2d) 998], and it was conceded by both sides that the cases were identical in principle. Certiorari was grunted in No. 5115 (284 U. S. 606, 52 S. Ct. 33, 76 L. Ed. 518), and we therefore held this ease to await the decision in that. The decision of this court having been affirmed by the Supreme Court in No. 5115 (April 11, 1932, 285 U. S. 393, 52 S. Ct. 443, 76 L. Ed. 815), it follows that this ease is controlled by that decision. This makes it necessary to reverse the order of redetermination of the Board of Tax Appeals and remand the ease for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.