KENEIPP ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court's action in taking additional evidence was permissible and that the findings must be affirmed absent a record showing them to be clearly erroneous.
Plaintiff sued to recover an overpayment of federal income taxes. A prior appeal remanded for findings on whether property was used in trade or busine…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Property Held for Production of Income cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal involves a suit in the District Court to recover an overpayment of federal income taxes. On a prior appeal, 1950, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 242, 184 F. 2d 263, the principal question was whether a gain upon a condemnation award was a capital gain. This depended upon whether the property was “used in trade or business” or was “held for the production of income.” 1 We remanded for further proceedings and findings. The District Court took additional evidence and found that part of the property was “used in trade or business,” and the “gain” to be ordinary income. A recomputation upon that basis for the year 1941 resulted in findings of a tax of $1307.98 and a total refund of $1931.53, plus statutory interest, for which judgment was entered.
On this appeal error is assigned in the taking of additional evidence. We think such action was permissible. Appellants also attack the findings in some particulars. However, they failed to bring to this court any record of the evidence upon which the findings were based. Therefore, we must assume that there was evidence to support the findings,2 and in the absence of evidence showing them to be clearly erroneous, we must affirm.3
So ordered.
. U.S.Treas.Regs. 111, § 29.117-1 (1943).
. Canal Bank v. Hudson, 1884, 111 U.S. 60, 4 S.Ct. 303, 28 L.Ed. 354; Griffith’s Dairy v. Squire, 9 Cir., 1943, 138 F. 2d 758; Kentucky Natural Gas Corp. v. Indiana Gas & Chemical Corp., 7 Cir., 1942, 129 F. 2d 17, 143 A.L.R. 484; Evergreen Cemetery Ass’n v. Burnet, 1930, 59 App. D.C. 397, 45 F. 2d 667.
. Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 52(a), 28 U.S.C. (1946 ed.); United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 1949, 338 U.S. 338, 70 S.Ct. 177, 94 L.Ed. 150; United States v. U. S. Gypsum Co., 1948, 333 U.S. 364, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746; Santucci v. Pignatello, 1951, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 190, 188 F. 2d 643; Remington Rand Inc. v. Societe Internationale, 1951, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 275, 188. F. 2d 1011.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jernigan v. The S. Pac. Co., 222 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1955)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1948)
- United States v. Yellow CAB Co., 338 U.S. 338 (U.S. 1949)
- Ky. Natural Gas Corp. v. Ind. GAS & Chem. Corp. (two cases), 129 F.2d 17 (7th Cir. 1942)
- Canal Bank & Others v. Hudson & Another, 111 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1884)
- Evergreen Cemetery Ass'n v. Burnet, 45 F.2d 667 (D.C. Cir. 1930)
- Keneipp v. United States, 184 F.2d 263 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
- Griffiths Dairy, Inc. v. Squire, 138 F.2d 758 (9th Cir. 1943)
- Santucci v. Pignatello, 188 F.2d 643 (D.C. Cir. 1951)