From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hudson Engineering Corp. v. Commissioner

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jul 7, 1950
183 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1950)

Opinion

No. 13043.

July 7, 1950.

Walter E. Barton, Washington, D.C., for taxpayers.

Harry Marselli, Ellis N. Slack, Hilbert P. Zarky, Special Assistants to Attorney General, Theron L. Caudle, Assistant Attorney General, Charles Oliphant, Chief Counsel, Bernard D. Daniels, Special Attorney, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Washington, D.C., for Commissioner.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and McCORD and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.


Upon consideration of the record, the briefs and the oral argument, it appears that the Tax Court by its findings of fact and opinion correctly adjudged Hudson Engineering Corporation was required to accrue additional income in the taxable year, and that Edward J. Hudson possessed an economic interest in the specified minerals in place which entitled him to a deduction for depletion. 11 T.C. 1042.

The determinations of the Tax Court are

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Hudson Engineering Corp. v. Commissioner

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jul 7, 1950
183 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1950)
Case details for

Hudson Engineering Corp. v. Commissioner

Case Details

Full title:HUDSON ENGINEERING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jul 7, 1950

Citations

183 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1950)

Citing Cases

Denver Rio Grande Western Rd. Co v. U.S.

Plaintiff obtained its car note in August 1947. It says — and defendant denies — that this note was valuable…

SCOFIELD v. LA GLORIA OIL AND GAS COMPANY

First, taxpayer here makes an effort to say that there was an actual conveyance of the heavier hydrocarbons…