U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1934

Saenger v. Commissioner

Saenger v. Commissioner
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided March 10, 1934 · Hutcheson
69 F.2d 633; 13 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 743; 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 3618; 1934 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9141; 13 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 743 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

S. L. Herold, of Shreveport, La., for petitioner., Prank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Se-wall Key and Norman D. Keller, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., and E. Barrett Prettyman, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Hartford Allen, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Saenger v. Commissioner

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

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

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

The denial of A. D. Saengesr’s petition (C. C. A.) 69 F. (2d) 631, denies Mrs. Saen-ger’s too. Co-owners of the income earned, they are co-payers of the tax on it.

Unlike in Earl’s Case, 281 U. S. Ill, 50 S. Ct. 241, 74 L. Ed. 731, husband and wile here are joint, not separate, earners. Together they are the tree. They share its fruits and the burdens of that sharing. Bender v. Pfaff, 282 U. S. 127, 51 S. Ct. 64, 75 L. Ed. 252.

The petition is denied.

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