Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Fellowship Foundation v. District of Columbia
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 179 F.2d 56
Argued November 4, 1949 Decided December 19, 1949
Mr. Jo V. Morgan, Washington, D. C. for petitioner.
Mr. George C. Updegraff, Assistant Corporation Counsel, District of Columbia, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Vernon E. West, Corporation Counsel, District of Columbia, and Chester H. Gray, Principal Assistant Corporation Counsel, District of Columbia, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for respondent.
Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN, and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals for the District of Columbia affirming assessments for the fiscal years 1947-48-49 on the real estate of petitioner, which it claimed to be exempt from taxation under Title 47, § 801a(n), Supp. VI, District of Columbia Code 1940. The Board, in affirming the assessment, held: (1) that the building was not primarily and regularly used for religious worship and study, and therefore was not exempt; and (2) that there was no evidence upon which to base any apportionment of valuation under section 2 of said Act.
We agree with the conclusions of the Board.
Although respondent raises a question as to whether an apportionment could, in any event, be made in view of the first conclusion of the Board, as this question need not now be decided we express no opinion concerning it. The decision of the Board is affirmed.