U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 1933

Lougee v. Commissioner

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Decided January 31, 1933 · Bingham

63 F.2d 112; 12 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 141; 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 3336; 1933 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9104; 12 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 141 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Clark, Vanderhoof & Little, of Boston, Mass. (Nelson B. Vanderhoof, of Boston, Mass., of counsel), for petitioner., J. Louis Monarch, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen. (G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key and J. P. Jackson, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., and C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and W. F. Wattles, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Walker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1st Cir. 1937)
Silverman v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1957)
Willkie v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (6th Cir. 1942)
Sportwear Hosiery Mills v. Commissioner (3d Cir. 1942)
Hall v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (4th Cir. 1937)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

BINGHAM, Circuit Judge.

This is a petition to revise a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals sustaining a deficiency tax of $1,136.23 assessed against the petitioner upon $16,000, which he failed to return as income for the year 1926.

The Board of Tax Appeals found as a fact that the $16,000 was received by the petitioner in 1926 as additional compensation for past services in the nature of salary and was taxable income. The petitioner’s *113contention is that the $16,000 was paid to and received by him as a gift.

As the scope of review by this court of decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals is confined to questions of law, tho only legal question presented is whether there was any evidence from which the Board could find that the $16,000 was received by the petitioner as compensation for past services. We do not regard it necessary to recount the evidence. We have carefully examined it, and are of the opinion that it was sufficient to sustain the finding of the Board. There was a conflict of evidence upon the question, and, where such is the ease, the finding of the Board is final.

The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.