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.
LIBERTY MACHINE WORKS, INC., Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee, 1975 — 518 F.2d 554 · caselaw · US
Tax
LIBERTY MACHINE WORKS, INC., Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee
518 F.2d 554·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1975
Before JONES, Senior Circuit Judge, HEANEY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
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
LIBERTY MACHINE WORKS, INC., Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.
No. 74-1901.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 1975.
Decided July 24, 1975.
Urban C. Bergbauer, St. Louis, for appellant.
George G. Wolf, Atty., Tax Div., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before JONES, Senior Circuit Judge, HEANEY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Warren L. Jones, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
PER CURIAM:
Liberty Machine Works, Inc. seeks review of an adverse decision of the Tax Court in which tax deductions were denied with respect to a profit-sharing plan for its salaried and clerical employees. The facts which presented the issue and the reason for the determination by the Tax Court are set forth in its opinion. 62 T.C. 621. The decision of the Tax Court is correct and its judgment is
Affirmed.