U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1971

Atlas Storage Company, a Corporation v. United States of America, Atlas Storage Company, a Corporation v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 22, 1971 · Sobeloff, Bryan, Butzner

437 F.2d 1319; 27 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 71 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Thomas N. Chambers, Charleston, W. Va. (Louis S. Southworth, II, and Jackson, Kelly, Holt & O’Ferrell, Charleston, W.Va., and William G. Johnson, and Johnson & Johnson, Clarksburg, W.Va., on brief) for appellant., Richard W. Perkins, Atty., Dept, of Justice (Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks and Ernest J. Brown, Attys., Dept, of Justice, on brief) for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Bickes-Wilbert Burial Vault Co. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1986)
Thrifty Supply of Spokane, Inc. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1976)
Bay Sound Transportation Co. v. United States (District Court, S.D. Texas 1972)
Citizens Bank & Trust Co. of Maryland v. United States (District Court, D. Maryland 1972)

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a decision of the District Court sustaining the action of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in disallowing surtax exemptions for fifteen of the eighteen warehouse corporations controlled by William J. Maier, Jr., and located in Charleston and Clarks-burg, West Virginia, and Columbus, Ohio. The District Court found after an extensive hearing that the principal purpose for the formation of the fifteen corporations was tax avoidance, and consequently that under § 269 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 these taxpayers were not entitled to the benefit of the surtax exemption. The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court’s finding is clearly erroneous. After carefully reviewing the record and the thorough opinion of the District Court (reported at 306 F.Supp. 570), we conclude that the finding as to principal purpose is amply supported by the evidence.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

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