Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Marvin L. Dietrich and Marjorie Dietrich v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Marvin L. Dietrich & Marjorie Dietrich v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 503 F.2d 1379 (8th Cir. 1974)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1974-09-25
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Upon a careful consideration of the record, the briefs and oral argument, the Court has concluded that the factual findings of the Tax Court are not clearly erroneous, that its decision is based upon a correct interpretation of the law as applied to the pleadings and the facts of the case, and that an opinion would have no precedential value. See Leathers v. United States, 471 F.2d 856 (8th Cir. 1972); Wertzberger v. United States, 441 F.2d 1166 (8th Cir. 1971).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Marvin L. Dietrich and Marjorie Dietrich v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
DIETRICH v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,503 F.2d 1379(8th Cir. 1974)
MARVIN L. DIETRICH AND MARJORIE DIETRICH, APPELLANTS, v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, APPELLEE.
No. 74-1276.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted September 13, 1974.
Decided September 25, 1974.
Truman Clare, Omaha, Neb., for appellants.

Ann Belanger Durney, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States Tax Court; Darrel D. Wiles, Judge.
Before VOGEL, Senior Circuit Judge, and ROSS and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[1] Upon a careful consideration of the record, the briefs and oral argument, the Court has concluded that the factual findings of the Tax Court are not clearly erroneous, that its decision is based upon a correct interpretation of the law as applied to the pleadings and the facts of the case, and that an opinion would have no precedential value.SeeLeathers v. United States,471 F.2d 856(8th Cir. 1972); Wertzberger v. United States,441 F.2d 1166(8th Cir. 1971). For these reasons the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed without opinion.

[2] See Rule 14 of the Rules of this Court.Page 23