U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1950

Thomas v. Obenchain

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided December 6, 1950 · Hutcheson, Holmes, Russell

185 F.2d 455; 39 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1293; 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3913 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Edward J. P. Zimmerman, Sp. Asst, to the Atty. Gen., Theron Lamar Caudle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Asst, to the Atty. Gen., Frank B. Potter, U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., O. Morris Harrell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for appellant., Geo. S. Atkinson, Tom B. Rhodes, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Campbell v. Walker (5th Cir. 1954)
Gliptis v. United States (United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama 1954)

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

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

The trial court held that Mrs. Goodwin inherited a business from Her Tiusband, and at the time in question was engaged in the money-lending business, which in- *456 eluded investments. We think she was merely investing her own money, and was not engaged in a trade or 'business within the meaning of Section 23 (k) (4) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 23' (k) (4). We agree with appellant that, under the evidence in the case, the lower court’s finding was clearly erroneous. See Higgins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 312 U.S. 212, 61 S.Ct. 475, 85 L.Ed. 783.

The judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

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