Case Name: FIRST SECURITIES CORPORATION OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, Appellant, v. Hal H. CLEMENTS, Former Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Tennessee, Appellee; FIRST SECURITIES CORPORATION OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, Appellant, v. Charles M. McCABE, Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Tennessee, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1939-05-08
Citations: 103 F.2d 1011
Docket Number: Nos. 7898, 7899
Parties: FIRST SECURITIES CORPORATION OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, Appellant, v. Hal H. CLEMENTS, Former Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Tennessee, Appellee. FIRST SECURITIES CORPORATION OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, Appellant, v. Charles M. McCABE, Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Tennessee, Appellee.
Judges: Before HICKS, SIMONS, and AR-ANT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 103
Pages: 1011–1012

Head Matter:
FIRST SECURITIES CORPORATION OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, Appellant, v. Hal H. CLEMENTS, Former Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Tennessee, Appellee. FIRST SECURITIES CORPORATION OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, Appellant, v. Charles M. McCABE, Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Tennessee, Appellee.
Nos. 7898, 7899.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
May 8, 1939.
F. E. Hagler, of Memphis, Tenn., for appellant.
Horace Frierson, Jr., U. S. Atty., and A. O. Denning, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Nashville, Tenn., for appellees.
Before HICKS, SIMONS, and AR-ANT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
These consolidated causes were heard upon the transcripts of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel, and it appearing that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was not required to distribute, allocate or apportion gross income or deductions between appellants and the First National Bank of Memphis, that he was only authorized to do so in case he should determine that such distribution, apportionment or allocation was necessary in order to prevent evasion of taxes or to clearly reflect income, and it not appearing that his refusal to make such distribution, apportionment or alloca tion in these cases was arbitrary or an abuse of discretion, it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the judgments appealed from be and the same are in all things affirmed.