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.
Harry POTTASH, Appellant, v. David BURNET, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Appellee, 1931 — 50 F.2d 321 · caselaw · US
Tax
Harry POTTASH, Appellant, v. David BURNET, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Appellee
50 F.2d 321·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·1931
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
Harry POTTASH, Appellant, v. David BURNET, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Appellee.
No. 5084.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Argued April 9, 1931.
Decided May 4, 1931.
Geo. E. H. Goodner, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, Morton K. Rothschild, C. M. Charest, and Shelby S. Faulkner, all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, YAN ORSDEL, HITE, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — GRONER, Associate Justice.]
GRONER, Associate Justice.
The rights of the taxpayer under this appeal are controlled by our decision in ease No. 5082, 60 App. D. C. —, 50 F.(2d) 317. Taxpayer is a partner in the firm of Pot-tash Bros, holding a 50 per cent, interest therein. To the extent that our decision in No. 5082 modifies the findings of the Board in that case, the taxpayer is entitled, to the extent of his interest in the income from the partnership, to prevail on this appeal. His tax liability should therefore be recomputed in conformity with our decision as to the correct income of Pottash Bros, for 1917 as decided in No. 5082.
- Modified and affirmed, and remanded for further proceedings.