Tax
William Albert HARBISON, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
68 F.2d 1004·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1934
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
William Albert HARBISON, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 208.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Jan. 8, 1934.
For the opinion below, see 26 B. T. A. 896.
J. E. MaeCloskey, Jr., of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Hugh Satterlee, of New York City, of counsel), for-petitioner.
Sewall Key and J. P. Jackson, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The question presented is identical with that decided in Bliss v. Commissioner, 68 F.(2d) 890, handed down herewith. For the reasons there stated, the order must be, and is, reversed.
L. HAND, Circuit Judge, dissents.