Case Name: John J. HOEFLE, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1942-03-02
Citations: 127 F.2d 293
Docket Number: No. 8932
Parties: John J. HOEFLE, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Judges: Before ALLEN, HAMILTON, and MCALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 127
Pages: 293–294

Head Matter:
John J. HOEFLE, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 8932.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
March 2, 1942.
Qement V. Jacobs, of Dayton, Ohio, for petitioner.
Samuel O. Clark, Jr., J. P. Wenchel, Sewáll Key, John M. Morawski, J. Louis Monarch, and Samuel H. Levy, all of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before ALLEN, HAMILTON, and MCALLISTER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This case came on to be heard upon the briefs and record and oral argument of counsel, and the additional quotations of law and regulations filed by the petitioner; and it appearing that the Commissioner did not err in computing petitioner's profit on the sale of certain shares of common stock during the year 1933 by application of the formula laid down in Regulations 62, Art. 1567, promulgated under the Revenue Act of 1921. Baker v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 115 F.2d 987; and it appearing that the petitioner failed to prove that the market values used by the Commissioner in the computation were erroneous (Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507, 515, 55 S.Ct. 287, 79 L.Ed. 623); and no reversible error appearing in the record: It is ordered that the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals be and it hereby is affirmed.