LUCAS, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

v.

REED

Citator

Cited By

• Underwood v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 56 F.2d 67 (4th Cir. 1932)
  …were not state employees, since the measure of control was not sufficiently full. See Burnet v. McDonough (C. C. A.) 46 F.(2d) 944; Blair v. Byers (C. C. A.) 35 F.(2d) 326; Lucas v. Howard, 280 U. S. 526, 50 S. Ct. 87, 74 L. Ed. 593; Lucas v. Reed, 281 U. S. 699, 50 S. Ct. 352, 74 L. Ed. 1125. There are a number of circumstances in the pending case which, taken alone, tend to show the relationship of employer and employee rather than that of independent contractor. The architect had no other employment; he…
• Lewis v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 47 F.2d 32 (3d Cir. 1931)
  …s depends the partnership loss or profit distributable to the partners. Although the decision of the Board, that the firm was not in either instance a governmental employee -rendering its income exempt, was made before the decision in Lucas v. Reed, 281 U. S. 699, 50 S. Ct. 352, 74 L. Ed. 1125, it was made after Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U. S. 514, 46 S. Ct. 172, 70 L. Ed. 384, on which the Supreme Court grounded the Lueas-Reed decision. We hold that Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, rules this ease on its f…

Authorities Cited

• Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1926)
• Anglo & London - Paris Nat'l Bank v. Consol. Nat'l Bank, 280 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1929)
• Lucas v. Howard, 280 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1929)