Case Name: 1040 SPRINGFIELD AVENUE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1950-12-13
Citations: 185 F.2d 406
Docket Number: No. 10199
Parties: 1040 SPRINGFIELD AVENUE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
Judges: Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and GOODRICH and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 185
Pages: 406–406

Head Matter:
1040 SPRINGFIELD AVENUE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 10199.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Dec. 5, 1950.
Decided Dec. 13, 1950.
Murry M. Weinstein, New York City, for petitioner.
Fred E. Youngman, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen. (Theron Lamar. Caudle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., on the brief), for resppndent.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and GOODRICH and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal from the Tax Court the taxpayer seeks to override that court's conclusion that the failure to file a personal holding company return for the period in question was due to wilful neglect. Our decisions in Girard Investment Co. v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 1941, 122 F.2d 843 and Hatfried, Inc. v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 1947, 162 F.2d 628, are relied on. But unlike the situations in those cases, there is an express finding that the petitioner did not advise its tax consultant of all the facts pertaining to the question of whether or not it was a personal holding company. This finding has adequate support in the evidence. The cases above cited are not applicable.
The decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.