RICHARD CHACE AND FRANCES L. CHACE, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the district court's judgment regarding the deductibility of rental payments.
Taxpayers sued for a refund of income taxes for 1963-1965. The issue was the deductibility of rental payments made by Dr. Chace for a building he prev…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Suit For Refund Of Taxes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F. 2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F. 2d 526, Part I.
In this case the taxpayers sued for the refund of income taxes, and interest, assessed and collected for the years 1963, 1964, and 1965. At issue is the deductibility of certain rental payments made by Dr. Chace for the use of a building previously owned by him and thereafter placed in trust for ten years. The factual details are reported in the opinion of the District Court, 303 F. Supp. 513 (M.D., Fla., 1969) 1
For the reasons there appearing and upon the authorities there cited, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.
See, in particular, Furman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 5 Cir., 1967, 381 F. 2d 22 and Van Zandt v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 5 Cir., 1965, 341 F. 2d 440, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 814, 86 S.Ct. 32, 15 L.Ed.2d 62.
Affirmed.
. The trust involved was of the so-called “Clifford Type”. See Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 60 S.Ct. 554, 84 L.Ed. 788; and Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Secs. 671-678 (26 U.S.C. 1964 Ed., Secs. 671-678).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Audano v. United States, 428 F.2d 251 (5th Cir. 1970)
-
C. P. and Helen Brooke v. United States, 468 F.2d 1155 (9th Cir. 1972)
-
Carey J. Perry and Marietta M. Perry v. United States, 520 F.2d 235 (4th Cir. 1975)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331 (U.S. 1940)
- Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Huth v. S. Pac. Co., 417 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Williams v. Howard Johnson's, Inc., 382 U.S. 814 (U.S. 1965)
- Van Zandt et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 382 U.S. 814 (U.S. 1965)
- VAN Zandt v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 341 F.2d 440 (5th Cir. 1965)
- Irvine K. Furman and Lorena K. Furman v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 381 F.2d 22 (5th Cir. 1967)