From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perata v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 7, 1937
90 F.2d 498 (9th Cir. 1937)

Opinion

No. 8197.

June 7, 1937.

Upon Petition to Review a Decision of the United States Board of Tax Appeals.

On petition for rehearing.

Petition denied.

For former opinion, see 89 F.2d 550.

Leo J. McEnerney, of San Francisco, Cal. (J. Bruce Fratis, of San Francisco, Cal., of counsel), for petitioners.

James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, Frederick W. Dewart, J. Louis Monarch, and Warren F. Wattles, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before WILBUR, MATHEWS, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.


In our original opinion we held that a syndicate was acting as an agent of a principal in the sale of certain stock and that for the agent's services it received a "compensation" consisting of certain stock. The theory then urged by respondent could not, we held, support the taxation proposed. On rehearing respondent contends that petitioner would be subject to a tax under our holding, and asks that we remand the case to the Board for decision under that holding. We express no opinion as to whether or not the petitioner is subject to a tax. However if he is, a tax should be assessed.

It is ordered that the case be remanded to the Board, with leave to consider such additional evidence as may be presented by the parties, and determine what, if any, is the taxpayer's tax liability for the taxable year 1928.

Petition for rehearing denied.


Summaries of

Perata v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 7, 1937
90 F.2d 498 (9th Cir. 1937)
Case details for

Perata v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Case Details

Full title:PERATA v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 7, 1937

Citations

90 F.2d 498 (9th Cir. 1937)

Citing Cases

De Maria v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

In our opinion herein we held that the decision in this case was controlled by what we said in Perata v.…