Tax
Bertha H. SAENGER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
69 F.2d 633·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1934
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
Bertha H. SAENGER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 7147.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 10, 1934.
S. L. Herold, of Shreveport, La., for petitioner.
Prank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Se-wall Key and Norman D. Keller, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., and E. Barrett Prettyman, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Hartford Allen, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and HUTCH-ESON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.]
HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.
The denial of A. D. Saengesr’s petition (C. C. A.) 69 F. (2d) 631, denies Mrs. Saen-ger’s too. Co-owners of the income earned, they are co-payers of the tax on it.
Unlike in Earl’s Case, 281 U. S. Ill, 50 S. Ct. 241, 74 L. Ed. 731, husband and wile here are joint, not separate, earners. Together they are the tree. They share its fruits and the burdens of that sharing. Bender v. Pfaff, 282 U. S. 127, 51 S. Ct. 64, 75 L. Ed. 252.
The petition is denied.