DocketNumber: Docket Nos. 13007-80, 13008-80.
Citation Numbers: 44 T.C.M. 1401, 1982 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 140, 1982 T.C. Memo. 602
Filed Date: 10/18/1982
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
PARKER,
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and exhibits attached thereto are incorporated herein by this reference.
Petitioners Joseph S. Piekos and Dolores F. Piekos resided in Bloomingdale, Illinois, when they filed their petitions in these consolidated cases. 2 Petitioners timely filed a joint U.S. Individual Income Tax Return (Form 1040) for the taxable year 1976 with the Internal Revenue Service Center at Kansas City, Missouri. References to petitioner in the singular will be to Joseph S. Piekos, and where reference to the wife is necessary, she will be referred to as "Dolores."
*142 During the years 1976, 1977, and 1978, petitioner was a 50 percent shareholder, a director, and the president of Mid-States Rigging, Inc. (Mid-States). During the years 1976 and 1977, and at least up to May 1978, Edgar Engler (Engler) was also a 50 percent shareholder, a director, and the secretary-treasurer of Mid-States. Mid-States was engaged in the business of moving heavy equipment and machinery, and petitioner and Engler were the only full-time employees of Mid-States.
Mid-States maintained its corporate books and records and filed its Federal income tax returns on a fiscal year ending on the last day of February. Mid-States maintained a cash receipts and disbursements journal that recorded all corporate expenditures. Mid-States' books were kept at its business offices in Chicago. Both petitioner and Engler had equal and unrestricted access to Mid-States' books. Both petitioner and Engler were authorized to sign checks drawn on mid-States' account at the Western National Bank, Cicero, Illinois. Both petitioner and Engler wrote checks and made entries in the cash disbursements journal, although petitioner was primarily responsible for the day-to-day book-keeping.
*143 On February 20, 1976, Dolores acquired title to a lot located at 143 Raven Lane in Bloomingdale, Illinois. Petitioner had negotiated to purchase that lot for a period of time prior to February 20, 1976. On March 9, 1976, Dolores applies for a permit from the Village of Bloomingdale to construct a single family residence and the permit was granted on March 15, 1976. The residence in Bloomingdale was completed in August of 1976. Petitioner acted as the general contractor for the construction of the residence.
Sometime in March or April of 1976, petitioner told Engler that he was going to use some of Mid-States' funds to pay some of the costs of building his new residence, and Engler consented to this use of corporate funds. Petitioner agreed to render a full accounting to Engler. It is unclear whether this agreement was reached before or after petitioner began construction of his new residence, or before or after petitioner told his subcontractors and suppliers to send their bills to Mid-States' offices. At the time of this agreement, petitioner and Engler did not agree upon, nor even discuss, terms such as duration of the "loan," interest rate, security, or a repayment schedule. *144 Nor did they set a maximum limit on the corporation's payments on petitioner's behalf; petitioner was limited only to the extent of Mid-States' assets -- "He couldn't borrow more than what we [Mid-States] had."
Petitioner had the contractors and suppliers send their invoices to Mid-States' business offices in Chicago. Most of the invoice contained internal indications, such as addresses and the like, that they were for costs and labor on a job at 143 Raven Lane. A couple of the invoices identified that address as petitioner's personal residence. Between April 23 and July 28, 1976, petitioner signed checks drawn on Mid-States' account to subcontractors and suppliers for services and supplies rendered in the construction of his residence. In addition to writing these checks, petitioner accounted for each payment in Mid-States' cash disbursements journal under the various classifications used to record the corporation's own business expenses. After returns, the net payments made by Mid-States for petitioner's benefit totaled $26,717.05. The schedule of payments and the classifications under which petitioner listed the disbursements in Mid-States' cash disbursements journal*145 are as follows:
Check | Date | Payable to | Amount | Classification |
1737 | 4-23-76 | Industrial Steel | $ 297.07 | Job Cost |
1821 | 5-18-76 | Paul Travelstead | 156.00 | Job Cost |
1822 | 5-18-76 | John Downes | 187.00 | Job Cost and Materials |
1823 | 5-18-76 | Components, Inc. | 345.98 | Job Cost and Materials |
1882 | 5-27-76 | Augustine | ||
Construction | 3,375.00 | Job Cost Subcontractor | ||
1900 | 6-02-76 | Rockwood Co. | 175.00 | Insurance |
1909 | 6-03-76 | Don Conforti | ||
Plumbing | 2,460.00 | Subcontractors | ||
2077 | 6-21-76 | Bartels Company | 1,594.00 | Job Cost and Supplies |
2101 | 6-22-76 | Augustine | ||
Construction | 1,395.00 | Job Expense | ||
2203 | 6-25-76 | G.C. Kranz Heating | ||
& Cooling, Inc. | 3,500.00 | Repairs and Service | ||
2204 | 6-25-76 | G.C. Kranz Heating | ||
& Cooling, Inc. | 100.00 | Repairs and Service | ||
2211 | 6-30-76 | John Mullin Masonry | 3,875.00 | Subcontractor |
2225 | 7-07-76 | Augustine | ||
Construction | 4,559.00 | Subcontractor | ||
2256 | 7-12-76 | G.M.A. Electric | 2,490.00 | Subcontractor |
2286 | 7-28-76 | Pli-O-Seal | 483.00 | Office Decorating |
2287 | 7-28-76 | Barnes Excavating | 2,325.00 | Job Expense |
TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED | $27,317.05 | |||
LESS AMOUNT RETURNED | 600.00 | |||
NET AMOUNT RECEIVED | $26,717.05 |
*146 Petitioner knew at the time he issued these checks that the payments were for his own personal expenses and that they did not represent deductible business expenses of Mid-States. In accounting for these payments in Mid-States' cash disbursements journal under various categories of corporate expenditures, such as "job cost," "materials," "subcontractor," "insurance," and "office decorating," petitioner did not make any marks or otherwise indicate in the journal that the checks were payments of his own personal expenses and should therefore be reclassified at some later date. Petitioner did not set up a loan account on the corporate books for the Mid-States' funds disbursed for his personal benefit, nor did he ask anyone whether he should set up such an account. 3 Petitioner did keep a "tally" of payments made by Mid-States for construction costs on his home which he submitted to Engler sometime after completion of the residence. This accounting showed a net of $26,717.05 paid by Mid-States on petitioner's behalf.
*147 Petitioner also classified Mid-States' checks for corporate expenses (checks other than those issued to the subcontractors and suppliers on his personal residence) as subcontractor, job cost, or job expense in Mid-States' cash disbursements journal for the months of March through July of 1976. After subtracting the $26,717 paid on behalf of petitioner, the total amount paid by Mid-States for corporate job costs or job expense during its taxable year ended February 28, 1977, and before making adjusting journal entries, was $13,231.38.
At the time Engler agreed to let petitioner use corporate funds to pay construction costs on his house, petitioner and Engler agreed that Engler would receive a distribution of cash from Mid-States in an amount equal to the payments made on petitioner's behalf for the construction costs of his house. Petitioner signed a check drawn on Mid-States' account dated February 26, 1977, to Ed Engler for $26,717, minus a deduction for FICA of $731.25. 4 This represented Engler's "loan" from Mid-States, to balance the distributions by Mid-States on petitioner's behalf. Petitioner entered the check to Engler on Mid-States' payroll sheets. Engler had no*148 need to borrow money from Mid-States and the payment was merely to equalize his position with petitioner's.
Sometime after the close of Mid-States' fiscal year of February 28, 1977, petitioner and Engler signed unsecured promissory notes dated March 1, 1977, each in the amount of $26,717, each bearing interest of six percent per annum, and each payable in 115 monthly installments, unless sooner paid. Those notes were executed well after March 1, 1977, possibly as late as September 1977. 5Mid-States accrued no interest on these "loans" until at least March 1, 1977. Likewise, petitioner paid no interest attributable to any period before March 1, 1977.
*149 Mid-States employed Samuel Dikelsky (Dikelsky) as bookkeeper and account during the years 1975 through 1978. Dikelskly spent one or two days a month at Mid-States' offices doing the accounting and bookkeeping work for the corporation. He totalled or "footed" the corporation's books of original entry. In addition, Dikelsky prepared balance sheets, work sheets, statements of income and expense, profit and loss work sheets, and adjusting journal entries for the fiscal years ended on February 28, 1977, and February 28, 1978. Dikelsky had access to all Mid-States' records, including the cash disbursements journal, and all invoices. Dikelsky did not become aware of Mid-States' payments on behalf of petitioner until sometime after the close of the fiscal year on February 28, 1977. 6 Dikelsky only learned about the payments when petitioner told him about them and showed him the "tally" he had prepared. Dikelsky first reclassified the payments as additional salary to petitioner. Dikelsky advised petitioner that, in his opinion, the payments were salary income to him. When petitioner first informed Dikelsky that Mid-States' funds had been used to pay construction costs on his residence, *150 he did not provide Dikelsky with the original or copy of the promissory note signed by him and dated March 1, 1977. See Footnote 5 above.
During June or July of 1977, the Internal Revenue Service began an audit of Mid-States for some year or years prior to the year ended February 28, 1977. On September 9, 1977, Dikelsky attended a meeting in the offices of Arthur Nasser, counsel for Mid-States, but the record does not disclose what transpired at that meeting. After that meeting, Dikelsky made adjusting journal entries reclassifying the payments on petitioner's behalf and the payments to Engler as loans rather than salary. 7 Before making this reclassification, Dikelsky was shown the notes and repayment schedules. Mid-States' Corporate Income Tax Return (Form 1120) for the fiscal year ending February 28, 1977, was dated September 12, 1977, and was filed with the Internal Revenue Service*151 on September 14, 1977. Petitioner signed for Mid-States, and Dikelsky signed the return as the preparer. 8
A document dated March 1, 1977, purportedly*152 the minutes of a meeting of the board of directors of Mid-States, increased the weekly salaries of petitioner and Engler from $500 to $750, and approved the "loans" to petitioner and Engler. Mid-States' payroll ledgers showed that petitioner and Engler each received a weekly salary of $500 during each of the years 1976, 1977, and 1978. Federal withholding, FICA, and state withholding for both petitioner and Engler were calculated on the $500 weekly salary figure. Adjusting journal entries accounted for the $250 weekly salary increases that were applied against the "loans" to petitioner and Engler. This authorization increasing the salaries to petitioner and Engler, and approving the "loans," occurred well after March 1, 1977, possibly as late as September 1977. See Footnotes 5 and 7 above. At the close of Mid-States' taxable year ending February 28, 1978, both petitioner and Engler were credited with additional salary in an amount sufficient to pay off the balance of their "loans." This second salary increase was not formally authorized by the board of directors. 9
*153 Petitioner reported salary income from Mid-States on his calendar year 1977 Federal income tax return in the amount of $37,650. Of this amount, $10,000 represented the increased salary that was applied directly against the principal and interest due on the "loan" obligation to Mid-States. Petitioner reported salary income from Mid-States on his calendar year 1978 Federal income tax return in the amount of $53,814. Of this amount, $19,914.86 was applied directly against the principal and interest due on his "loan" obligation to Mid-States. He also deducted interest paid on his "loan" from the corporation in both years. On its corporate income tax returns for its taxable years ending February 28, 1977 and February 28, 1978, Mid-States deducted as compensation those increased salary amounts. 10
Petitioner did not report as income in his calendar year return*154 for the year 1976 any of the payments made by Mid-States on his behalf in 1976 for construction costs on his home. In his notice of deficiency, respondent determined that the corporate payments on petitioner's behalf constituted taxable income to him. 11 In addition, respondent determined that part of the underpayment for 1976 was due to fraud and therefore determined an addition to tax under
OPINION
The first issue we must decide is whether payments made by Mid-States on petitioner's behalf constitute bona fide corporate loans. Petitioner was a 50 percent shareholder and an officer and director of Mid-States. Mid-States paid over $27,000 on petitioner's behalf to subcontractors and supplier for the new home petitioner was constructing. Petitioner argues that these corporate payments represent loans by Mid-States to him. Respondent*155 argues that these distributions on petitioner's behalf constitute taxable income to him.
Whether corporate payments to or on behalf of a shareholder constitute bona fide loans or taxable income is a question of fact that turns upon the intent of the parties. The parties must have intended the transaction as a loan, which requires both an intention upon the part of the taxpayer-shareholder to repay and a corresponding intention on the corporation's part to enforce the obligation. This intent must have existed at the time the payments were made.
While there is no fixed rule for distinguishing income from loans, some general criteria are available to guide*156 us in ascertaining the intentions of the parties at the time they entered into the transaction. See, e.g.
Furthermore, payments by a closely-held corporation require special and careful scrutiny; control and lack of adverse interest between taxpayers and their corporation require that we look beyond the mere form and self-serving testimony so that we may perceive the true nature of the transaction.
There is no precise formula for weighing and balancing the various factors which we consider in resolving this factual issue. Each case must be decided upon its own facts. After reviewing the evidence in this record, we are convinced the payments made by Mid-States on petitioner's behalf in 1976 were not bona fide loans. Accordingly, we hold for respondent on this issue. Several factors contribute to our holding.
First, we note how petitioner accounted for this transaction on Mid-States' books. Petitioner did not, at the time of the transactions, create a loan account in the corporation's cash journal nor did he inquire whether he should do so. Indeed, petitioner recorded the various disbursements in various corporate expense accounts as if they were legitimate expenditures for corporate purposes. There was nothing in the cash journal that would in any way indicate that payments had ever been made on petitioner's behalf. The fact that petitioner kept a separate tally of the payments may have some bearing*159 on the fraud issue, see p. 27,
Second, we observe the absence of traditional indicia of a loan
Third, we note that the evidentiary value of the March 1, 1977 documents is further diminished by our finding that they were not in fact executed on that date. Indeed, most of the evidence suggests that these documents*161 were not executed until at least September of 1977. Many factors justify this inference, including: (1) the fact that Dikelsky did not make his adjusting entries reclassifying the payments as a loan until after the September 9, 1977 meeting with the corporation's counsel; (2) the facts that the salary increase, purportedly authorized March 1, 1977 to pay the "loan" purportedly ratified on that date, was not reflected in the payroll ledgers, and indeed, was accounted for only by adjusting entries made in the books at the close of the taxable years; and (3) the fact that Dikelsky did not make the adjusting entries reclassifying the transaction as a loan until
Fourth, the purported loans were made in proportion to petitioner's and Engler's respective stock holdings. Pro rata distributions to or on behalf of shareholders tend to evidence taxable income (in the form of dividends) rather*163 than bona fide loans,
Petitioner's strongest argument in favor of treating the transaction as a bona fide loan is that the purported loan obligation was in fact repaid, with interest. Repayment is often a highly persuasive factor, 16 but it too is only one factor to be considered and it is not conclusive.
Accordingly, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of proof to establish that these payments on his behalf were bona fide corporate loans. We find for respondent*166 on this issue and hold that the payments are taxable income to petitioner in 1976.
It is not clear whether we are called upon to decide whether the corporate payments were salary of dividends. The issue as framed by both parties in their pleadings and at trial was whether the payments were loans or "taxable income," not whether the taxable income was salary or dividends. The first mention of "dividends" came in respondent's opening brief. Normally we do not consider issues raised for the first time on brief.
*167 Moreover, the description in the statutory notice of the disallowed item can fairly be read as describing a constructive dividend. 19 Indeed, were we called upon to decide the issue, we would be hard pressed to characterize these pro rata payments to the two shareholders as anything other than constructive dividends. There is no credible evidence in the record to suggest that the payments were for services rendered to the corporation. In any event, the parties have not clarified for the Court why a characterization need be made in this case.
The distinction between salary or compensation, on the one hand, or dividends, on the other hand, could be important if petitioner were claiming the benefits of section 1348. That is because the maximum tax under section 1348 applies only to "earned income." In his recomputation of petitioner's tax liability in the notice of deficiency, *168 respondent applied the higher marginal rates of section 1 rather than the 50 percent maximum rate imposed by section 1348. If petitioner intended to claim the benefits of section 1348, he should have done so in his petition. "Any issue not raised in the assignment of errors shall be deemed to be conceded."
Here, however, petitioner had claimed income averaging on his 1976 return, and a taxpayer cannot have the benefits of both income averaging and the maximum tax. See section 1304(b)(4), as it read in 1976. However, it does not appear that respondent gave petitioner the benefit of income averaging in the statutory notice, and the parties may be able to attend to this matter in the computation under Rule 155 without the necessity of reopening the record. 20
*169 Since we hold that the payments by Mid-States constitute income to petitioner in 1976 that he did not report, we now must address the fraud issue.
*171 In his answer to the petition in this case, respondent alleged as evidence of fraud all of petitioner's various understatements of income and underpayments of tax for the year 1976. 23 Except for the issue of the corporate distributions which we have held to be income to petitioner, all of the other items were settled by the parties before trial. See Footnote 11 above. Since respondent introduced no evidence on these points on trial, we shall not consider them in ruling on the fraud issue. Based on all the facts in this case, we conclude that respondent has not established fraud by clear and convincing evidence.
As primary evidence of petitioner's alleged fraud, respondent points to petitioner's accounting in Mid-States' books for the corporate distributions made to pay construction costs on his home. Petitioner recorded these expenses as if they were legitimate corporate expenditures. He did not give any indication in the books that they were for his own personal benefit. Furthermore, *172 these same corporate accounts also included proper corporate expenditures, a factor that might serve to hide the personal payments recorded in those accounts. Respondent correctly notes that this Court has often referred to conduct calculated to mislead or conceal as a prime indication of fraud. See
Furthermore, the fact that petitioner kept a separate tally of the corporate payments reduces somewhat the significance of his failure to account properly for the payments. If he had really intended to cover up the payments, we do not believe that he would have kept a separate written record of them, except perhaps to account to Engler so that Engler too could*173 take a like amount out of corporate funds. The record in this case reeks of suspicion. The Court found petitioner evasive and less than forthright in his testimony about the original agreement with the other stockholder, his treatment on the corporation's books of the purported loans from his corporation, and the facts and circumstances under which these purported loans came to light. There is a strong suspicion that the whole transaction came to light only after the IRS began an audit of the corporation. However, the Court did not wholly discount petitioner's story because the other stockholder testified unequivocally that petitioner asked his permission to use corporate funds to build his house and that he (Engler) agreed to that. While Engler too seemed evasive and less than candid on other matters, he was clear on that point. Moreover, mere suspicion does not prove fraud, and the fact that we do not find petitioner's testimony wholly credible is not sufficient to establish fraud.
Respondent cites as further evidence of petitioner's alleged fraud the fact that his accountant, Dikelsky, advised him that the payments were income to him. Dikelsky gave petitioner this advice when Dikelsky first became aware of the payments, but that occurred substantially after the close of the corporation's taxable year of February 28, 1977. In fact, from the record it appears likely that it did not take place until sometime after the commencement of the IRS audit in the middle of the summer of 1977. Petitioner's income tax return for 1976 was timely filed and is dated April 12, 1977. It is difficult to see how advice from his accountant that payments constituted income, advice that the taxpayer received after he had already filed his income tax return for the year in question, constitutes evidence of fraud. Furthermore, the record is not clear whether Dikelsky advised petitioner that the payments were income to him in 1976 or 1977. In fact Dikelsky himself appeared to believe that the payments were income in 1977, not 1976. It is also difficult*175 to see how an accountant's advice to a taxpayer that certain payments constitute taxable income in 1977 prove that the taxpayer's failure to report such amounts as income in 1976 was fraudulent.
We conclude that respondent has failed to carry his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that part of the underpayment of tax for 1976 was due to fraud.
To reflect the foregoing and the concessions of the parties,
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended and in effect during the taxable year 1976, and all references to Rules are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Joseph S. Piekos is petitioner in docket No. 13007-80. Dolores F. Piekos is petitioner in docket No. 13008-80. Dolores originally claimed protection in her separate petition as an innocent spouse under section 6013(e), but waived that issue at trial.↩
3. In explaining why he had posted the disbursements for his house as Mid-States' business expenses rather than in a "loan" account, petitioner testified "That was the only way I knew of how to post it (sic)." We do not find his explanation credible.↩
4. Petitioner could not explain why he withheld FICA taxes on Engler's "loan." We note that an entry was made on Engler's payroll records, in normal date sequence, reflecting this payment as salary. A similar entry was made on petitioner's payroll records, but out of proper date sequence, reflecting the $26,717 as salary to petitioner and a like amount of FICA, $731.25, for petitioner.↩
5. While the notes are dated March 1, 1977, there was no testimony that in fact they were executed on that date. Although the date shown in the notes may evidence the date of execution, it is not determinative. From other evidence, we find that the notes were executed well after March 1, 1977. First, Dikelsky, Mid-States' accountant and bookkeeper, was not shown the notes when he first became aware of the disbursements (which event itself occurred sometime after February 28, 1977). When Dikelsky first became aware of the payments for petitioner's home and the equalizing payment to Engler, the accountant initially classified those expenditures as additional salary to the two shareholder-officers. Dikelsky later reclassified the payments from salary to loans only after seeing the notes. If the notes had been executed on March 1, there is no reason in the record why they were not shown to Dikelsky, and no explanation in the record why Dikelsy waited until September to reclassify the payments as loans. See n. 7,
6. Other than the fact that it occurred after February 28, 1977, Dikelsky could not remember exactly when petitioner told him about the advances. Indeed, Dikelsky could not even remember whether he was so informed before or after the IRS audit of Mid-States that began in the summer of 1977.↩
7. Petitioner argues that there is no evidence that this adjusting entry was made after the September 9 meeting, but the stipulated joint exhibit indicates otherwise. Dikelsky's work sheet lists adjusting entries 1 through 19. It then states, "Per instructions from Mr. Nasser & Arthur Samet (legal counsel for company) office visit 9/9/77." This statement is directly above adjusting entries Nos. 20-23, and it is No. 21 that changes the disbursements for petitioner's benefit from salary to a loan. We accept that entry as evidence that Dikelsky made the adjusting entry after the September 9 meeting. We are also satisfied that Dikelsky made the entry before September 12, since Mid-States' income tax return for fiscal year ended February 28, 1977, dated September 12, 1977 and filed September 14, 1977, reflects loans to stockholders in an amount of $53,434, the total payments for both petitioner and Engler. ↩
8. Dikelsky prepared petitioner's individual tax returns for 1977 and 1978, but he did not prepare petitioner's 1976 return.↩
9. While petitioner testified that he was the board of directors, apparently meaning that no formal authorization was necessary, his testimony is contradicted by the parties' stipulation that Engler served as a director until
10. Because of the different time frame of petitioner's calendar yeawr return and the corporation's fiscal year return, the amounts are not exactly the same. Mid-States' returns also reported interest income, but the record does not disclose whether such amounts represented any of the "interest" paid by petitioner.↩
11. Respondent also determined that petitioner had failed to report other items of income, including rental income from Mid-States, reimbursed business expenses from Mid-States, and unreported interest. Those issues are not before the Court, having been settled by the parties by their separate stipulation of settled issues.↩
12. See also
13. See also
14. See also
15. See also
16. See
17. See also
18. See also
19. In part, that description read:
It is further determined that these disbursements were not reimbursements for any expenses you incurred by or on behalf of the corporation but were funds used by you for your personal benefit. Therefore, your taxable income for 1976 is increased by $26,717.05.↩
20. See
21.
(b)
22. See also
23. Respondent also alleged that petitioner had lied to respondent's agents and otherwise impeded the course of the audit. No evidence in support of those allegations was presented to the Court.↩
C. F. Williams and Jeanne v. Williams v. Commissioner of ... , 627 F.2d 1032 ( 1980 )
George R. Tollefsen and Margaret A. Tollefsen v. ... , 431 F.2d 511 ( 1970 )
Mitchell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 118 F.2d 308 ( 1941 )
Jack Haber and Doris Haber v. Commissioner of Internal ... , 422 F.2d 198 ( 1970 )
joseph-a-cirillo-and-martha-r-cirillo-v-commissioner-of-internal , 314 F.2d 478 ( 1963 )
Chris D. Stoltzfus and Irma H. Stoltzfus v. United States , 398 F.2d 1002 ( 1968 )
W. A. Shaw and Grace Shaw v. Commissioner of Internal ... , 252 F.2d 681 ( 1958 )
Paul W. Berthold and Dorothy Berthold v. Commissioner of ... , 404 F.2d 119 ( 1968 )
Atlanta Biltmore Hotel Corporation and Bennie T. Hanson v. ... , 349 F.2d 677 ( 1965 )
Charles Oran Mensik and Mary Mensik v. Commissioner of ... , 328 F.2d 147 ( 1964 )
Filippo Candela and Providenza Candela v. United States , 635 F.2d 1272 ( 1980 )
Edward and Ruth Wilkof, Ervin and Marie Wilkof v. ... , 636 F.2d 1139 ( 1981 )
Harry J. Johnson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 652 F.2d 615 ( 1981 )
Estate of E. W. Chism, Deceased, Clara Chism, and Clara ... , 322 F.2d 956 ( 1963 )
Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co. , 38 S. Ct. 467 ( 1918 )
Spies v. United States , 63 S. Ct. 364 ( 1943 )
Welch v. Helvering , 54 S. Ct. 8 ( 1933 )