U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1954

The Akron Dry Goods Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

The Akron Dry Goods Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided December 17, 1954 · Allen, McALLISTER, Per Curiam, Stewart
218 F.2d 290 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Wise, Roetzel, Maxon, Kelly & Andress, Akron, Ohio, for petitioner., H. Brian Holland, Ellis N. Slack, Daniel A. Taylor, Claude R. Marshall, Lee A. Jackson, I. Henry Kutz, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

The Akron Dry Goods Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision. The 2 that cite it most often are listed here.

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 above cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record, the briefs of the parties, and the argument of counsel in open court. It appears that the findings in the opinion of the Tax Court are supported by evidence which, in the language of Helvering v. F. & R. Lazarus & Co., 308 U.S. 252, 255, 60 S.Ct. 209, 84 L.Ed. 226, permits, at most, conflicting inferences, and are, therefore, conclusive here; that such findings that the land trust certificate transaction here involved was a sale, and not a mortgage to secure a loan, were, accordingly, sustained by the evidence, and are not clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

With regard to the computation of petitioner’s equity invested capital, the determination of the Tax Court is set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the holding of the court in Crean Bros. v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 195 F.2d 257. In all other respects, the findings of the Tax Court are affirmed.

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