Levine v. Commissioner

2d Cir.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Citations: 250 F.2d 798

Decision Date: 1/6/1958

Docket Number: No. 44, Docket 24516

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Levine v. Commissioner, 250 F.2d 798 (2d Cir. 1958)

More Cases: 2d Cir. decisions from 1958

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Frequently CitedTop 11% most-cited · cited by 64 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1960s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s

Courts citing this case

Tax Ct.43

T.C.20

2d Cir.1

Most recently cited by10

2016Ericson v. Comm'r Tax Ct.
2009Hie Holdings, Inc. v. Comm'r Tax Ct.
2003Michael J. & Sandra M. Downing, Petitioner T.C.
2003Downing v. Comm'r Tax Ct.
2001Rogelio R. Balot & Zenaida V. Balot, Petitioners T.C.
2001BALOT v. COMMISSIONER Tax Ct.
1999Steven H. Toushin, Petitioner T.C.
1999Toushin v. Commissioner Tax Ct.
1998Levine v. Commissioner Tax Ct.
1998Iles v. Commissioner Tax Ct.

Cites 1 case

Estate of Stein v. Commissioner

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Lazarus I. LEVINE and Norman L. Marks, Executors of the Estate of Samuel Stein, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

Attorneys

Murray L. Brinn, New York City, for petitioners-appellants.
Grant W. Wiprud, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John N. Stull and A. F. Prescott, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent-appellee.

majority PER CURIAM.

The income tax deficiencies for 1944 and 1945 here assessed against the estate of the deceased taxpayer, Samuel Stein, were based upon findings that certain proceeds of sales of goods in Stein’s bank accounts really represented sales by Stein’s wholly owned corporation and thus were taxable first as income to the corporation and then as dividends to Stein. These findings are not here challenged, but petitioners by a motion to revise the opinion and decision of the Tax Court raised the issue that Stein had actually paid for the original purchase of goods thus sold and petitioners could therefore take the purchase price as a deduction in computing the tax. But the Tax Court in denying the motion found the evidence that such payments came from Stein, rather than his corporation, insufficient to sustain petitioners’ burden and held that the purchase price was to be attributed to the corporation. This is the sole issue on appeal. We do not find the court’s holding clearly erroneous and affirm on Judge Black’s original opinion, Estate of Stein v. C. I. R., 25 T.C. 940, and on his memorandum opinion accompanying the order denying the motion to revise.

Affirmed.