U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1974

Robert W. McLemore and Lucile McLemore v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided May 3, 1974 · Phillips, Lively, Mc-Allister

494 F.2d 1350; 33 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1239; 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8822 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Louis E. Ackerson, Louisville, Ky., for appellants; Robert L. Ackerson, William J. Cooper, Jr., Louisville, Ky., on brief., Murray S. Horwitz, Atty., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee; Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks, Leonard J. Henzke, Jr., Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Hubert Enters. v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2005)
Gilbert v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1980)
WILKOF v. COMMISSIONER (United States Tax Court 1978)
Hubert Enterprises, Inc. and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2005)
Boshwit Bros., Inc. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1982)
Justice Steel, Inc. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1980)
Freidus v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1979)
Johnson v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1975)

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.

An income tax deficiency was assessed by the Commissioner against petitioners for the year 1965. Robert W. Mc-Lemore was the sole shareholder of two corporations. Lucile McLemore is a *1351 party solely because she filed a joint return with her husband. The deficiency arose from a series of financial transactions by Mr. McLemore and the two corporations which are described fully in the memorandum and opinion of Judge Fay of the Tax Court upholding the deficiency assessment. T.C.Memo 1973-59.

We have carefully considered the briefs and oral arguments of counsel for petitioners. We conclude that the Tax Court correctly decided the issues in this case and affirm its judgment for the reasons set forth in its opinion.

So ordered.

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