575 F.2d 79 - Long v. United States — 575 F.2d 79

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2004

12 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Robert Edwin Davis, C. M. Meadows, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.

¶2John Clark, U.S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Myron C. Baum, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., Daniel F. Ross, Atty., Tax Div., Leonard J. Henzke, Jr., James A. Riedy, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellee.

¶3Before GODBOLD, SIMPSON and MORGAN, Circuit Judges:

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5The district judge, after a full bench trial, decided this income tax refund suit adversely to the taxpayers. The suit was generated by the Commissioner’s rejection of the taxpayers’ attempted deduction of one-half of the alleged losses of the husband’s joint venture with Mr. Long’s former law partner, Jake Jacobsen, relative to the operation of two apartment complexes. The Longs paid the deficiency, filed an unsuccessful claim for refund, and timely brought suit.

¶6The judgment below for the United States was supported by the district judge’s careful, complete and well-documented Memorandum Opinion, reported at 451 F.Supp. 1009 (D.C.1976). Our consideration of the briefs, the record, and oral argument persuades us that the judgment was correct, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district court, which we adopt.

¶7AFFIRMED.