From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Obenchain

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Dec 6, 1950
185 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1950)

Opinion

No. 12972.

December 6, 1950.

Edward J.P. Zimmerman, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., Theron Lamar Caudle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., Frank B. Potter, U.S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., O. Morris Harrell, Asst. U.S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for appellant.

Geo. S. Atkinson, Tom B. Rhodes, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for appellees.

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


The trial court held that Mrs. Goodwin inherited a business from her husband, and at the time in question was engaged in the money-lending business, which included investments. We think she was merely investing her own money, and was not engaged in a trade or business within the meaning of Section 23(k)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 23(k)(4). We agree with appellant that, under the evidence in the case, the lower court's finding was clearly erroneous. See Higgins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 312 U.S. 212, 61 S.Ct. 475, 85 L.Ed. 783.

The judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.


Summaries of

Thomas v. Obenchain

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Dec 6, 1950
185 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1950)
Case details for

Thomas v. Obenchain

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS v. OBENCHAIN et al

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Dec 6, 1950

Citations

185 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1950)

Citing Cases

Gliptis v. United States

See also Dunlap v. Oldham Lumber Co., 5 Cir., 178 F.2d 781, wherein the court, in an opinion by Judge…

Campbell v. Walker

Sec. 23.23(k)-6 (As amended by T.D. 5458, 1945 Cum.Bull. 45). Insisting that the evidence as a whole presents…