Case Name: Morris EISENBERG, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Herman SCHAEFFER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1949-05-09
Citations: 174 F.2d 827
Docket Number: Nos. 9900, 9899
Parties: Morris EISENBERG, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Herman SCHAEFFER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 174
Pages: 827–828

Head Matter:
Morris EISENBERG, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Herman SCHAEFFER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Nos. 9900, 9899.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued May 3, 1949.
Decided May 9, 1949.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 16, 1949.
Norman S. Altman, Washington, D. C. (Harry Shapiro, Hirsh W. Stalberg, David V. Shapiro, and Shapiro, Conner, Rosen-feld & Stalberg, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for petitioner.
Sumner N. Redstone, Washington, D. C. (Theron Lamar Caudle, Assistant Attorney General, and Ellis N. Slack, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before MARIS, GOODRICH, and MCLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The question raised by these petitions is whether the partnership interests held by the trusts created by the petitioners for their children are entitled to tax recognition under the doctrine of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Tower, 1946, 327 U.S. 280, 66 S.Ct. 532, 90 L.Ed. 670, 164 A.L.R. 1135, and Lusthaus v. Commissioner, 1946, 327 U.S. 293, 66 S.Ct 539, 90 L.Ed. 679. Upon the findings of fact of the Tax Court, which we cannot say are clearly erroneous, and for the reasons stated in the opinion filed by Judge Opper for that court,---
T.C. —, we conclude that those interests are not entitled to such recognition.
The decisions of the Tax Court will be affirmed.