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. WIDENER (three cases), 1929 — 33 F.2d 833 · caselaw · US
Tax
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. WIDENER (three cases)
33 F.2d 833·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1929
Before BUFFINGTON and WOOLLEY, Circuit Judges, and THOMSON, 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
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. WIDENER (three cases).
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
June 20, 1929.
Nos. 4001, 4002, 4003.
Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John Vaughan Groner and Bar-ham R. Gary, both of Washington, D. C. (C. M. Charest, General Counsel, and Shelby S. Faulkner, Sp. Atty. Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.
Ellis Ames Ballard, William R. Spofford, and Schoffleld Andrews, all of Philadelphia, Pa. (Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for appellees.
Before BUFFINGTON and WOOLLEY, Circuit Judges, and THOMSON, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.]
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
These cases present the question whether the Board of Tax Appeals erred in holding, as it did, that the racing stables of these taxpayers were operated as a “business,” or a “transaction entered into for profit,” within the meaning of the Revenue Acts of 1918 and 1921 (40 Stat. 1057, 42 Stat. 227). The Board of Tax Appeals held they were, and allowed reductions for losses thereby sustained. Thereupon the Commissioner took this appeal. The facts are not in dispute, and the warrant for the conclusions drawn therefrom by the Board are so fully and satisfactorily set forth in the record as to make a restatement by this court unnecessary.
Finding no error, judgment of the Tax Board is affirmed.