U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1951

Reed's Estate v. Scofield, Collector of Internal Revenue

Reed's Estate v. Scofield, Collector of Internal Revenue
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided January 5, 1951 · Hutcheson, Holmes, Russell
186 F.2d 133; 40 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 44; 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3804 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Thomas O. Shelton, Jr., Wright Matthews, Dallas, Tex., for appellants., Edward J. P. Zimmerman, Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Theron Lamar Caudle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Henry W. Moursund, U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for appellee.

Reed's Estate v. Scofield, Collector of Internal Revenue

Cases that cite this one

5 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

PER CURIAM.

The sole question in this case involves the correctness of the finding of the trial Court, against the contention of the taxpayer suing for a refund, that such plaintiff had failed to show that an oil and mineral lease became finally worthless in the year 1941. The establishment of loss in such year was essential to the plaintiff’s claim for recovery since the deduction therefor was claimed for the year 1941. The Commissioner had allowed the claim for the year 1940 but had disallowed it as accruing from a loss sustained during 1941. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances in the case, we conclude that the finding of the trial Judge is supported by the evidence. Cf. Mine Hill & Schuylkill Haven R. Co. v. Smith, 3 Cir., 184 F.2d 422.

The judgment appealed from is Affirmed.

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