Case ID: bta_21/html/0107-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Seawell:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

W. E. Lamm, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. E. S. Lamm, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. Ethel Fisher, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. c. Edith Lamm, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. Mrs. Edith Lamm, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
    Docket Nos. 23035, 23767-23771.
    Promulgated October 28, 1930.
    
      F. E. Toungman, Esg., for the petitioners.
    
      J. E. Mather, Esq., for the respondent.
   OPINION.

Seawell:

The petitioners admit that the issues now raised by them with respect to the constitutionality of section 280 of the Revenue Act of 1926 and proceedings thereunder have heretofore been considered by the Board in Henry Cappellini et al., 14 B. T. A. 1269, and many subsequent cases and decicled contrary to the contentions advanced by them. We are not persuaded that we should change the position previously taken on these questions. Cf. Routzahn v. Tyroler, 36 Fed. (2d) 208; 281 U. S. 734, and Phillips v. Commissioner, 42 Fed. (2d) 177.

Judgment will be entered for the respondent.