Kasch v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Upon the record, held, that during the taxable year in question petitioners did not operate their seed business in partnership with their minor son. 2. The evidence introduced by the respondent fails to prove that petitioners were guilty of fraud with intent to evade tax.
1Opinion of the Court
*288OPINION.
Love :
The issues, stated elsewhere, are briefly whether a partnership existed and whether any part of the deficiencies is due to fraud.
*289There was some discussion in the briefs as to whether in any event a minor could become a member of a partnership in the State of Tesas, and also whether the alleged partnership was one between petitioners as representing one combined two-thirds interest and Milton as representing a one-third interest, or whether it was a partnership between the three members of the family with each member representing a separate one-third interest.
We do not question…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Brown v. Farmers & Merchants National BankTexas Supreme Court · 1895
- Duveneck v. KutzerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1897
- Weatherford v. McFaddenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1899
- Granrud v. ReaCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1900
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kasch v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1932