From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alma Piston Co. v. Commr. of Internal Revenue

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Jul 3, 1978
579 F.2d 1000 (6th Cir. 1978)

Opinion

No. 77-1095.

July 3, 1978.

Paul R. Trigg, Jr., Joel J. Morris, Dykema, Gossett, Spencer, Goodnow Trigg, David M. Rosenberger, Detroit, Mich., for petitioner-appellant.

Myron C. Baum, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Tax Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Gilbert E. Andrews, Crombi, J.D. Garrett, Richard Farber, Meade Whitaker, Chief Counsel, I.R.S., Charles L. Saunders, Jr., Washington, D.C., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from United States Tax Court.

Before WEICK, EDWARDS and CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

On receipt and consideration of an appeal in the above-styled case; and

Finding that contrary to the contentions of appellant, the Tax Court properly determined that appellant corporation had been "availed of for the purpose of avoiding the income tax with respect to its shareholders," and that there was no proof to the contrary from the corporation by which this court could find that the Tax Court findings were clearly erroneous.

Now, therefore, the judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed for the reasons as to this issue set forth in the opinion of the Tax Court dated April 6, 1976, 35 T.C.M. (CCH) 464 (1976).


Summaries of

Alma Piston Co. v. Commr. of Internal Revenue

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Jul 3, 1978
579 F.2d 1000 (6th Cir. 1978)
Case details for

Alma Piston Co. v. Commr. of Internal Revenue

Case Details

Full title:ALMA PISTON COMPANY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Jul 3, 1978

Citations

579 F.2d 1000 (6th Cir. 1978)

Citing Cases

Snow Mfg. Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

+--------------------------------------------------+ ¦Accounts receivable cycle =¦number of days in year¦…

Lucas v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Lucas)

However, such adjustment was not a realistically foreseeable contingency and therefore should not be made.…