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.
Gideon N. STIEFF, Ida F. S. Alford, and Edwin G. Baetjer, Executors under the Will of Charles C. Stieff, Deceased, Appellants, v. Galen L. TAIT, Collector of Internal Revenue, Appellee, 1929 — 31 F.2d 1020 · caselaw · US
Tax
Gideon N. STIEFF, Ida F. S. Alford, and Edwin G. Baetjer, Executors under the Will of Charles C. Stieff, Deceased, Appellants, v. Galen L. TAIT, Collector of Internal Revenue, Appellee
31 F.2d 1020·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1929
Before WADDILL and PARKER, Circuit Judges, and McDOWELL, District Judge.
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
Gideon N. STIEFF, Ida F. S. Alford, and Edwin G. Baetjer, Executors under the Will of Charles C. Stieff, Deceased, Appellants, v. Galen L. TAIT, Collector of Internal Revenue, Appellee.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
April 9,1929.
No. 2795.
Joseph France, of Baltimore, Md. (Yen-able, Baetjer & Howard, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellants.
A. W. W. Woodcock,' U. S. Atty., of Baltimore, Md., and John H. Pigg, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C. (C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before WADDILL and PARKER, Circuit Judges, and McDOWELL, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
We find no error in the decision of the District Court, and we believe that nothing of importance could be added to the opinion of the trial judge, which is found in 26 F.(2d) 489.
Affirmed.