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.
Contracts · MBE-tested
KAUFMAN DEPARTMENT STORES, Inc., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
34 F.2d 257·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
KAUFMAN DEPARTMENT STORES, Inc., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
August 9, 1929.
No. 4029.
John W. Townsend, of Washington, D. C., C. E. Koss, of New York City, and J. C. Peacock, of Washington, D. C. (Rose & Paskus, of New York City, of counsel), for petitioner.
Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and John V. Groner, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen. (C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, and D. Y. Hunter, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for respondent.
Before BUEEINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.]
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
This tax case involves the ascertainment of the meaning and effect of a lengthy contract made by the taxpayer with a manager for compensation dependent on five years’ service and the profit inuring at the end of the term to the taxpayer as a result of such service. The ease turns on the terms of this particular contract. The facts of the ease and the individual features of the agreement are fully set forth in the findings and opinion of the Tax Board, and by reference thereto we avoid needless repetition.
Finding no error in the decree of the Board, we limit ourselves to approving its action.