U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1958

Engineers Club of Dallas v. United States

Engineers Club of Dallas v. United States
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided January 24, 1958 · Hutcheson, Tuttle, Hannay
251 F.2d 52; 1 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2194; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5742 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

John A. Pace, Morris Harrell, William E. Collins, Dallas, Tex., Scurry, Scurry & Pace, Dallas, Tex., Thompson, Knight, Wright & Simmons, Dallas, Tex., for appellant., Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Myron C. Baum, Atty., Washington, D. C., Heard L. Floore, U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., John N. Stull, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., A. F. Prescott, Sheldon I. Fink, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., John C. Ford, Asst. U. S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for appellee.

Engineers Club of Dallas v. United States

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites 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.

This is another of a series of cases arising from Dallas, Texas, presenting the question whether certain clubs, organized by members of a profession or business or out of some other common interest, are properly classified by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue as “Social * * * clubs or organizations.” 1 Of course, each case must be considered on its own facts, and the appellant here strongly contends that its professional engineering purposes and activities greatly exceed those found to be present in the case of the Downtown Club of Dallas v. United States, 5 Cir., 240 F.2d 159, and in the case of Insurance Club of Dallas v. United States, 5 Cir., 241 F.2d 830, and greatly overshadow the admitted social activities carried on by the appellant here. We cannot hold that the trial court was clearly in error in his refusal to draw a distinction between these cases. After all, this is a fact determination which must in the first instance be made by the trial court. On the authority of the Downtown Club and the Insurance Club cases, we hold that the judgment of the district court must be

Affirmed.

1

. See. 1710, I.R.C.1939, as amended, 26 U.S.C.A. § 1710.

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