Source: https://openjurist.org/299/us/171
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:00:03+00:00

Document:
HELVERING, Commissioner of Internal Revenue (three cases).
Mr. Eugene Untermyer, of New York City, for petitioners.
Messrs. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and Robert H. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
In order to ascertain the partners' taxable profits during 1929 the Commissioner held that securities in that account should be valued at their cost price; that as to them the partnership was not a dealer permitted to use inventories under Article 105, Treasury Regulations 74. Accordingly he found material deficiencies against each of the petitioners. The Board of Tax Appeals sustained his action; the court below affirmed.
Our consideration is confined to the issue so tendered by the petition.
Commissioner v. Stevens and Commissioner v. Charavay, supra, turned on the question whether Stevens and Legg, a 'Specialist' on the New York Stock Exchange, was a dealer whose profits should be determined upon inventories under Article 105, Treasury Regulations 74. The Board of Tax Appeals held it was, and the Circuit Court of Appeals in both the Second and Third Circuits approved that view. Considering the differing circumstances, we find no real conflict between the holdings in those cases and the ruling below. See Vaughan v. Commissioner (C.C.A.) 85 F.(2d) 497.
The evidence adequately supports these findings.
Seeley v. Helvering, Commissioner (C.C.A.) 77 F.(2d) 323, Hammitt v. Commissioner (C.C.A.) 79 F.(2d) 494, and Vaughan v. Commissioner, supra, are in harmony with our conclusion.
We find no adequate reason for disturbing the challenged judgment, and it is affirmed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.