Saenger v. Commissioner

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided March 10, 1934.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1934-03-10

2 counsel of record

Relies on Lucas v. Earl · Bender v. Pfaff · Saenger v. Commissioner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1934-03-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2000

6 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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1S. L. Herold, of Shreveport, La., for petitioner.

¶2Prank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Se-wall Key and Norman D. Keller, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., and E. Barrett Prettyman, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Hartford Allen, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

¶3Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and HUTCH-ESON, Circuit Judges.

¶4HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

¶5The denial of A. D. Saengesr’s petition (C. C. A.) 69 F. (2d) 631, denies Mrs. Saen-ger’s too. Co-owners of the income earned, they are co-payers of the tax on it.

¶6Unlike in Earl’s Case, 281 U. S. Ill, 50 S. Ct. 241, 74 L. Ed. 731, husband and wile here are joint, not separate, earners. Together they are the tree. They share its fruits and the burdens of that sharing. Bender v. Pfaff, 282 U. S. 127, 51 S. Ct. 64, 75 L. Ed. 252.

¶7The petition is denied.