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.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. Mamie R. OAKMAN et al., 1933 — 67 F.2d 989 · caselaw · US
Tax
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. Mamie R. OAKMAN et al.
67 F.2d 989·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1933
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
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. Mamie R. OAKMAN et al.
No. 6255.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 30, 1933.
G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., and C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
J. Marvin Haynes, of Washington, D. C., and Thos. G. Haight, of Jersey City, N. J., for respondents.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Decision of Board of Tax Appeals affirmed.