Case Name: SCHUYLKILL TRANSIT COMPANY, Appellant, v. Walter J. ROTHENSIES, Former Collector of Internal Revenue, First District of Pennsylvania, Joseph F. J. Mayer, Former Acting Collector of Internal Revenue, First District of Pennsylvania, and Francis R. Smith, Collector of Internal Revenue, First District of Pennsylvania
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1954-02-17
Citations: 210 F.2d 282
Docket Number: No. 11131
Parties: SCHUYLKILL TRANSIT COMPANY, Appellant, v. Walter J. ROTHENSIES, Former Collector of Internal Revenue, First District of Pennsylvania, Joseph F. J. Mayer, Former Acting Collector of Internal Revenue, First District of Pennsylvania, and Francis R. Smith, Collector of Internal Revenue, First District of Pennsylvania.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 210
Pages: 282–282

Head Matter:
SCHUYLKILL TRANSIT COMPANY, Appellant, v. Walter J. ROTHENSIES, Former Collector of Internal Revenue, First District of Pennsylvania, Joseph F. J. Mayer, Former Acting Collector of Internal Revenue, First District of Pennsylvania, and Francis R. Smith, Collector of Internal Revenue, First District of Pennsylvania.
No. 11131.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Feb. 4, 1954.
Decided Feb. 17, 1954.
Bernard V. Lentz, Philadelphia, Pa. (Fred Bremier, Jr., Thomas Raeburn White, White, Williams & Scott, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
Loring W. Post, Washington, D. C. (H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., William C. Thompson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for ap-pellee.
Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is a suit to recover for a tax payment which the taxpayer says was not properly exacted from it. It has to do with the question whether a loss was to be treated as an ordinary loss or charged as a capital loss. The district court decided the case against the taxpayer and rendered a thoroughly considered opinion in so doing, D.C.E.D.Pa. 1953, 115 F.Supp. 594. We do not have anything to add to that opinion.
The judgment will be affirmed.