Kugel v. Ryan
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
HINCKS, Circuit Judge.
For purposes of this appeal from the district court’s order granting the government’s motion for summary judgment, the facts may be stated as follows. Taxpayers were in partnership with one Sparks in a firm which dealt in government bonds. Although Sparks was to receive thirty per cent of the profits and sustain thirty per cent of the losses, all of the firm’s capital was contributed by taxpayers. In 1946, the market declined and the firm sustained severe losses.. The firm was dissolved later that year, and its assets were liquidated. Sparks’ *330share of the losses in the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Estate of Scofield v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1959
- Guggenheimer v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1947
- Henry v. BurnetCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1931
- Glenn v. Louisville Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1942
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Guy F. Atkinson Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1984
- Mary A. Buchanan and Gordon Buchanan, Jr. v. United States of America, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
- Kugel v. RyanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
- Garcia v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1991
- Condit v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1980
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.