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, Petitioner, v. CHICAGO NATIONAL LEAGUE BALL CLUB, Respondent, 1935 — 74 F.2d 1010 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. CHICAGO NATIONAL LEAGUE BALL CLUB, Respondent
74 F.2d 1010·United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·1935
Before EVANS, SPARKS, and FITZHENRY, 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
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. CHICAGO NATIONAL LEAGUE BALL CLUB, Respondent.
No. 5310.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Jan. 23, 1935.
Frank J. Wideman, Sewall Key, and S. Dee Hanson, all of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Albert L. Hopkins, Jay C. Halls, and Peter L. Wentz, all of Chicago, 111., for respondent.
Before EVANS, SPARKS, and FITZHENRY, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This petition for review involves corporate income taxes for 1927 and 1928, and is taken from a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals, entered March 2, 1934. The contract over which the controversy arises, in so far as it affects the issues here presented, is identical with the contract in Pittsburgh Athletic Company v. Commissioner, 27 B. T. A. 1074, and the material facts there presented were substantially the same as those presented here. That opinion was reviewed by the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit, Commissioner v. Pittsburgh Athletic Company, 72 F.(2d) 883, and affirmed on authority of the principles enunciated in Bonwit Teller & Company v. Commissioner (C. C. A.) 53 F.(2d) 381, 82 A. L. R. 325. With the reasoning and conclusions of those opinions we are in accord.
The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed.