Case Name: THOMAS v. OBENCHAIN et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1950-12-06
Citations: 185 F.2d 455
Docket Number: No. 12972
Parties: THOMAS v. OBENCHAIN et al.
Judges: Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and HOLMES and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 185
Pages: 455–456

Head Matter:
THOMAS v. OBENCHAIN et al.
No. 12972.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 6, 1950.
Edward J. P. Zimmerman, Sp. Asst, to the Atty. Gen., Theron Lamar Caudle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Asst, to the Atty. Gen., Frank B. Potter, U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., O. Morris Harrell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for appellant.
Geo. S. Atkinson, Tom B. Rhodes, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for appellees.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and HOLMES and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
HOLMES, Circuit Judge.
The trial court held that Mrs. Goodwin inherited a business from Her Tiusband, and at the time in question was engaged in the money-lending business, which in- eluded investments. We think she was merely investing her own money, and was not engaged in a trade or 'business within the meaning of Section 23 (k) (4) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 23' (k) (4). We agree with appellant that, under the evidence in the case, the lower court's finding was clearly erroneous. See Higgins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 312 U.S. 212, 61 S.Ct. 475, 85 L.Ed. 783.
The judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.