U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1970

Richard Chace and Frances L. Chace, His Wife v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided February 17, 1970 · Wisdom, Coleman, Simpson

422 F.2d 292; 25 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 70 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Sidney C. Ward, Philip A. Tharp, Ward, Bradford & Oswald, P. A., Orlando, Fla., for appellants., Edward F. Boardman, U. S. Atty., Orlando, Fla., Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen. of the U. S., Robert I. Waxman, Elmer J. Kelsey, Lee A. Jackson, Attys., Tax Division, U. S. Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Olga K. Audano and B. Randol Hardwick v. United States (5th Cir. 1970)
May v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1981)
Butler v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1975)
C. P. And Helen Brooke v. United States (9th Cir. 1972)
Carey J. Perry and Marietta M. Perry v. United States of America, J. Doyle Medders and Constance D. Medders v. United States (4th Cir. 1975)
Zumstein v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1973)
C. W. Payton and Bessie Joyce Payton v. United States (5th Cir. 1970)

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:

Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I.

In this case the taxpayers sued for the refund of income taxes, and interest, assessed and collected for the years 1963, 1964, and 1965. At issue is the deductibility of certain rental payments made by Dr. Chace for the use of a building previously owned by him and thereafter placed in trust for ten years. The factual details are reported in the opinion of the District Court, 303 F. Supp. 513 (M.D., Fla., 1969) 1

For the reasons there appearing and upon the authorities there cited, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

See, in particular, Furman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 5 Cir., 1967, 381 F.2d 22 and Van Zandt v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 5 Cir., 1965, 341 F.2d 440, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 814, 86 S.Ct. 32, 15 L.Ed.2d 62.

Affirmed.

. The trust involved was of the so-called “Clifford Type”. See Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 60 S.Ct. 554, 84 L.Ed. 788; and Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Secs. 671-678 (26 U.S.C. 1964 Ed., Secs. 671-678).

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