Court Opinion

ID: 9442651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:54:55.707169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:10.590340
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for rehearing in this case presents nothing that has not already been fully considered by the court. There were no irregularities in procedure on the hearing. On the contrary, what respondent complains of as irregularities were efforts on the part of the court to assure him the fullest possible hearing. The court advised counsel from the bench that, under the recent statute, 26 U.S.C.A. § 1141, decisions of the Tax Court were reviewed like decisions of the District Courts and that its findings of fact were not absolutely binding on the reviewing court as was formerly the case. After the case had been submitted, counsel for respondent asked leave to file a brief discussing the facts at greater length in view of this statement *590from the bench. Leave was granted and the brief was filed. Leave was, of course, granted to the other side to file a reply to the brief which respondent was permitted to file. The parties were thus given full opportunity to discuss the facts in their briefs. In addition to this, the facts were fully discussed in the oral argument. The petition for rehearing presents no fact or argument that was not fully developed before the court.
Petition denied.