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.
HOUSE & HERRMANN, Inc., v. LUCAS, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1929 — 36 F.2d 51 · caselaw · US
Tax
HOUSE & HERRMANN, Inc., v. LUCAS, Commissioner of Internal Revenue
36 F.2d 51·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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
HOUSE & HERRMANN, Inc., v. LUCAS, Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
November 18, 1929.
No. 2886.
David J. Shorb, of Washington, D. C. (Earle W. Wallick and Ben Jenkins, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
Andrew D. Sharpe, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen. (Sewall Key, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and John MacC. Hudson, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before PARKER and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and GLENN, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals. The question involved is purely one of fact, viz. the value of the good will of the business acquired by petitioner. The Board had before it not only opinion evidence as to this, but also all the facts as to the amount invested in the business and its earnings and expenses over a long period of time. The finding was supported by the evidence, and there is nothing to show that the Board abused its discretion or proceeded upon any erroneous view of the law. In such case, this court has no power to review the finding or to substitute its judgment for that of the Board.
Affirmed.