Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DUNITZ v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 167 F.2d 223 (6th Cir. 1948)

DUNITZ v. Comm’r OF INTERNAL REVENUE., 167 F.2d 223 (6th Cir. 1948)

Type: Opinion
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1948-03-08
Topic: general

DUNITZ v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 167 F.2d 223 (6th Cir. 1948) DUNITZ et al. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. No. 10472.Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 8, 1948.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed DUNITZ v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 167 F.2d 223 (6th Cir. 1948). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

DUNITZ v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,167 F.2d 223(6th Cir. 1948)

DUNITZ et al. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 10472.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 8, 1948.

Page 224

Petition to Review Decision of the Tax Court of the United States.

Petition by Harry Dunitz and Max Dunitz to review a decision of the Tax Court,7 T.C. 672, redetermining deficiency in income taxes assessed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Decision affirmed.

Edgar W. Pugh and George L. Cassidy, both of Detroit, Mich., for petitioners.

Theron L. Caudle, Charles Oliphant, and Sewall Key, all of Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Before SIMONS, ALLEN, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This case came on to be heard on the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel.

And it appearing that the principal issue is whether the amounts realized by the petitioners from the disposition of bonds originally executed by them, secured by real estate mortgage, and reacquired by petitioners, constituted ordinary income or capital gain; and it appearing that the Tax Court found that the bonds were sold by petitioners within the taxable year; and it appearing that the Tax Court also found that the purchase and sale of the bonds in question and of other similar securities constituted an essential and integral part of petitioners' business, and that petitioners' single intent was to purchase and hold such bonds not for investment, but primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business; and it appearing that the findings of the Tax Court are supported by ample evidence; and it appearing that the Tax Court's determination upon the facts found was in accordance with law, and that the amount derived from the sale is taxable as ordinary income and not as capital gain, Section 117(a)(1), Int.Rev. Code, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev. Code, § 117(a)(1). Cf. Trust of Bingham's Trust v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,325 U.S. 365,366,372,373,376,65 S.Ct. 1232,89 L.Ed. 1670, 163 A.L.R. 1175: It is ordered that the decision of the Tax Court be, and it hereby is, affirmed.Page 356