Summary
In Duquesne Steel Foundry Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 41 F.2d 995, and in Enameled Metals Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 42 F.2d 213, the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit held to the same effect, citing Cramer King Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra.
Summary of this case from Railroad Supply Co. v. BurnetOpinion
No. 4293.
June 16, 1930.
Petition to Review an Order of the United States Board of Tax Appeals.
Wm. F. Knox and Moorhead Knox, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner.
G.A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and Norman D. Keller, Sp. Asst Attys. Gen. (C.M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Stanley Suydam, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for respondent.
Before BUFFINGTON and WOOLLEY, Circuit Judges, and SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.
The question involved in this tax case is: "Where the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has determined that the petitioner is not entitled to have its profits tax deduction specially fixed under the provisions of section 210 of the Revenue Act of 1917, and such determination has been affirmed by the Board of Tax Appeals, may it be reviewed by this court in the absence of fraud or other irregularity?"
In Cramer and King Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 41 F.2d 24, this same question was before this court, and it there held:
"Whether a taxpayer is entitled to a special assessment under these sections was confided by the Congress to the discretion of the Commissioner and that discretion may not be reviewed by the courts in the absence of fraud or other irregularities. There is no hint of fraud or other irregularities here."
Such being the case, the order made by the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed.