House & Herrmann v. Lucas
| Decision Date | 18 November 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 2886.,2886. |
| Citation | 36 F.2d 51 |
| Parties | HOUSE & HERRMANN, Inc., v. LUCAS, Commissioner of Internal Revenue. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
David J. Shorb, of Washington, D. C. (Earle W. Wallick and Ben Jenkins, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
Andrew D. Sharpe, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen. , for respondent.
Before PARKER and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and GLENN, District Judge.
This is an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals. The question involved is purely one of fact, viz. the value of the good will of the business acquired by petitioner. The Board had before it not only opinion evidence as to this, but also all the facts as to the amount invested in the business and its earnings and expenses over a long period of time. The finding was supported by the evidence, and there is nothing to show that the Board abused its discretion or proceeded upon any erroneous view of the law. In such case, this court has no power to review the finding or to substitute its judgment for that of the Board.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shunk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...separate and distinct from this. Whether good will existed and its value were questions of fact for the Tax Court. House & Herrmann v. Lucas, 4 Cir., 36 F.2d 51; Ushco Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 151 F.2d 821. The seller of a going business necessarily transfers its good will......
-
Brevoort Hotel Co. v. Reinecke
... ... of the gross income of the lessee from which it is deducted, whereas the wear and tear of a house or shop in any given year may be only recognizable by theory and, as has happened in this case, may ... ...
- CIT Corporation v. McKenzie