Chimchirian v. Helvering
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
1Per curiam
The reasons given and the conclusions reached in the opinion of the Board of Tax Appeals1 are, in our opinion, correct. Petitioner’s contention that the Board abused its discretion in denying his motion for a rehearing is without merit.2 We therefore affirm its decision and approve its order.
Chimchirian v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 42 B.T.A. 1437.
Bankers’ Pocahontas Coal Co. v. Burnet, 287 U.S. 308, 313, 53 S.Ct. 150, 77 L.Ed. 325; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sussman, 2 Cir., 102 F.2d 919, 923. Cf. Roerich v. Helvering, 73 App.D.C. 13, 15, 115 F.2d 39, 41.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bankers Pocahontas Coal Co. v. BurnetSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Chimchirian v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1940
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. SussmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
- Roerich v. HelveringCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1940
3Cited by9 opinions
- Robinson's Dairy, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1961
- Robinson's Dairy, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1962
- Estate of Haseltine v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1976
- Armaganian v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1978
- Bon Realty Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1967
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.