U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1928

Crook v. Commissioner

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided January 21, 1928 · Foster

23 F.2d 1000; 6 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 7255; 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3291; 6 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 7255 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

J. D. Wilkinson, C..H. Lewis, and W. S. Wilkinson, all of Shreveport,. La. (Wilkinson, Lewis & Wilkinson, of Shreveport, La., on the brief), for petitioners., Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., A. W. Gregg, General Counsel Bureau of Internal Revenue, and L. W. Scott, Sp. Atty. Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C. (C. M. Charest, General Counsel Bureau of Internal Revenue, and John W. Fisher, Sp. Atty. Bureau. of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Culp v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1989)

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

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined a deficiency in income tax for 1919 of $609.39 with respect to R. L. Crook, and of $1,379.97 with respect to the estate of his wife, and petitioners appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals for a redetermination of the deficiencies. The cases were consolidated before the board as they are here. The board found that petitioners had failed to overcome the presumption of correctness of the determination of the Commissioner and affirmed the determination of deficiencies made by him. We find nothing in the evidence in the record warranting a reversal of the decision of the board. Avery v. Com. of Int. Rev. (C. C. A.) 22 F.(2d) 6.

Affirmed.

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