Case Name: E. C. NEWSOM and Beatrice D. Newsom, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1955-02-24
Citations: 219 F.2d 444
Docket Number: No. 15131
Parties: E. C. NEWSOM and Beatrice D. Newsom, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 219
Pages: 444–445

Head Matter:
E. C. NEWSOM and Beatrice D. Newsom, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 15131.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 24, 1955.
William R. Frazier, James P. Hill, Jacksonville, Fla., Hill & Frazier, Jacksonville, Fla., for petitioners.
Robert B. Ross, Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel A. Taylor, Ch. Counsel, Rollin H. Transue, Sp. Atty., Washington, D. C., Int. Rev. Serv., for respondent.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and RIVES and TUTTLE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The decision is affirmed on the opinion of the Tax Court, 22 T.C. 225, followed in Davis v. Dudley, D.C.W.D.Pa., 124 F.Supp. 426, 429, by District Judge Marsh, one of the judges who had joined in deciding United States v. Erie Forge Co., 3 Cir., 191 F.2d 627, thought by the petitioner to be in conflict with the decision of the Tax Court.
Affirmed.
. See also United States v. Koppers Co. (Premier Oil Refining Co. v. United States), 1955, 348 U.S. -, 75 S.Ct. 268; Stephan v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 197 F.2d 712; Middleton v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 200 F.2d 94; Maxwell v. Campbell, 5 Cir., 205 F.2d 461; Eck v. Commissioner, 16 T.C. 511, affirmed per curiam, 2 Cir., 202 F.2d 750; Bouche v. Commissioner, 18 T.C. 144, on appeal now to 2 Cir.; Smith v. Commissioner, 20 T.C. 663.