U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1960

Paul Lustig v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Halina Lustig

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided March 24, 1960 · Bone, Pope, Koelsch

274 F.2d 448 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles B. E. Freeman, Hart H. Spiegel, Harry Baum, Lee A. Jackson, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for petitioner., Halina Lustig, Paul Lustig, in pro. per.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Limpert v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1961)
Burwell v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1965)
Tucker v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1960)

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.

We think that the findings of fact of the Tax Court are not clearly erroneous, and since we are in full accord with the statement of the law expressed in the decision of the Tax Court which is reported at 30 T.C. 926, the decision of the Tax Court is affirmed.

We cannot agree with the contention of the petitioner Lustig that the rule laid down in Thomas Lovett, 18 T.C. 477, is not still the law. As counsel for the Commissioner has pointed out, when § 214 of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 214, was added, Congress intended to give a taxpayer in the position of Halina Lustig a tax benefit in addition to the exemption for a dependent. Now to hold that by § 214 the rule of the Lovett case was no longer valid would amount to saying that when Con *449 gress granted the rights set forth in § 214 it automatically withdrew from Mrs. Lustig rights which she theretofore had to claim the dependency exemption.

Affirmed.

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