Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

175 F.2d 555

Docket No. 9844.

Morano v. Commissioner

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued June 10, 1949.

Decided June 15, 1949.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 16, 1949.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1949-06-15

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1953

3 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Commissioner v. Sunnen · Commissioner v. Tower · Lusthaus v. Commissioner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1949-06-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Ralph G. Mesce, Newark, N. J. (Thomas Cantillo, Newark, N. J., Carl Abruzzese, Newark, N. J., on the brief), for petitioner.

¶2Harry Marselli, Washington, D. C. (Theron Lamar Caudle, Assistant Attorney General, Ellis N. Slack, Special Assistant to Attorney General, on the brief), for respondent.

¶3Before MARIS, GOODRICH and KA-LODNER, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The sole question involved in this case was whether a partnership which may be recognized for tax purposes under the rule laid down in Commissioner v. Tower, 1946, 327 U.S. 280, 66 S.Ct. 532, 90 L.Ed. 670, 164 A.L.R. 1135, Lusthaus v. Commissioner, 1946, 327 U.S. 293, 66 S.Ct. 539, 90 L.Ed. 679, and Commissioner v. Sunnen, 1948, 333 U.S. 591, 68 S.Ct. 715, 92 L.Ed. 898, existed between the petitioner, his wife and his two children in 1943 and 1944. The Tax Court stated that on the entire record it could not conclude that this family really and truly intended to join together as a partnership. We cannot say that this conclusion was clearly erroneous. Accordingly the decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.

/175/f2d/555 · .json · Public domain