AMOROSO

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Citator

Cited By

• Towers v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 247 F.2d 233 (2d Cir. 1957)
  ….2d 500, 504, certiorari denied 338 Ü.S. 949, 70 S.Ct. 485, 94 L.Ed. 586; Hamlin’s Trust v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 10 Cir., 209 F. 2d 761, 763-764; Amoroso v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1 Cir., 193 F. 2d 583, 586, certiorari denied 343 U.S. 926, 72 S.Ct. 759, 96 L.Ed. 1337. . See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Smith, 2 Cir., 203 F. 2d 310, certiorari denied 346 U.S. 816, 74 S.Ct. 27, 98 L.Ed. 343; Hickerson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 2 Cir., 229 F. 2d 631; Commissioner of I…
• Commissioner OF Internal Revenue v. Bagley, 374 F.2d 204 (1st Cir. 1967)
  …allow a deduction for lunch to a man whose business requires him to spend his eight hour day on the road, even though in a sense he is traveling. We have held against such a taxpayer. Amoroso v. Commissioner, 1 Cir., 1952, 193 F. 2d 583, cert. den. 343 U.S. 926, 72 S.Ct. 759, 96 L.Ed. 1337 (traveling salesman). Nor do we suppose, if a commuter were required to work late at his place of business, that any court would distinguish between his lunch and his supper. Cf. Jerome Mortrud, 1965, 44 T.C. 208; Fred G…
• Kuehner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 214 F.2d 437 (1st Cir. 1954)
  …ion to determine whether that finding is clearly erroneous. 26 U.S.C. § 1141(a); United States v. State Street Trust Co., 1 Cir., 1942, 124 F. 2d 948; Amoroso v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1 Cir., 1952, 193 F. 2d 583, certiorari denied, 1952, 343 U.S. 926, 72 S.Ct. 759, 96 L.Ed. 1337. For the following reasons we do not believe [*440] that the $65,000 valuation found by the Tax Court is clearly erroneous. [*439] “ * * * The fair market value of property is a question of fact, but only in rare and ex…