Tax

R. W. WISTAR, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent; Frederick S. UNDERHILL, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

42 F.2d 192·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1930

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

R. W. WISTAR, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Frederick S. UNDERHILL, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Nos. 274, 275. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. June 9, 1930. Donald Horne, of Washington, D. C., for petitioners. G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and Helen R. Carloss, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen. (C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and John Mc. C. Hudson, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for respondent. Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. The petitioners are alleged to be inhabitants, Wistar, of New Jersey, and Underhill, of Pennsylvania. There are no stipulations in the records that the petitions shall be heard by this court. That would, however, make no difference, since we have held in Massachusetts Eire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, 42 F.(2d) 189, handed down June 9, 1930, that section 1225 (d) of title 26, U. S. Code (26 USCA § 1225(d), does not allow the parties to choose the venue of such eases at their pleasure in any Circuit Court of Appeals. On the authority of that decision, the petitions are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Petitions dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.