From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reed's Estate v. Scofield

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jan 5, 1951
186 F.2d 133 (5th Cir. 1951)

Opinion

No. 13253.

January 5, 1951.

Thomas O. Shelton, Jr., Wright Matthews, Dallas, Tex., for appellants.

Edward J.P. Zimmerman, Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., Theron Lamar Caudle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Henry W. Moursund, U.S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and HOLMES and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.


The sole question in this case involves the correctness of the finding of the trial Court, against the contention of the taxpayer suing for a refund, that such plaintiff had failed to show that an oil and mineral lease became finally worthless in the year 1941. The establishment of loss in such year was essential to the plaintiff's claim for recovery since the deduction therefor was claimed for the year 1941. The Commissioner had allowed the claim for the year 1940 but had disallowed it as accruing from a loss sustained during 1941. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances in the case, we conclude that the finding of the trial Judge is supported by the evidence. Cf. Mine Hill Schuylkill Haven R. Co. v. Smith, 3 Cir., 184 F.2d 422.

The judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Reed's Estate v. Scofield

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jan 5, 1951
186 F.2d 133 (5th Cir. 1951)
Case details for

Reed's Estate v. Scofield

Case Details

Full title:REED'S ESTATE et al. v. SCOFIELD, Collector of Internal Revenue

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jan 5, 1951

Citations

186 F.2d 133 (5th Cir. 1951)

Citing Cases

In re Valley Forge Corp.

`Modern administration requires a definitive cut-off date past which claims may not be filed,' said the…

In re Pigott

"Modern administration requires a definitive cut-off date past which claims may not be filed," said the…