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.
Tax
HOME BUILDING & SAVINGS CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; MUTUAL BLDG. & INVESTMENT CO. v. SAME; CENTRAL OHIO BLDG. & LOAN CO. v. SAME; CITIZENS' LOAN & BLDG. CO. v. SAME; MINSTER LOAN & SAVINGS CO. v. SAME
32 F.2d 1015·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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
HOME BUILDING & SAVINGS CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; MUTUAL BLDG. & INVESTMENT CO. v. SAME; CENTRAL OHIO BLDG. & LOAN CO. v. SAME; CITIZENS’ LOAN & BLDG. CO. v. SAME; MINSTER LOAN & SAVINGS CO. v. SAME.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
May 8, 1929.
Nos. 5399, 5400, 5412-5414.
L. L. Hamby, of Washington, D. C., for petitioners.
C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Judgments of United States Board of Tax Appeals reversed, and causes remanded for proper proceedings, pursuant to confessions of error and consent to judgment.