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
Slifka, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (two Cases)
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. - 182 F.2d 345
Argued May 3, 1950.Decided May 22, 1950
Herman Goldman, New York City, Elias Rosenzweig, New York City, Herman M. Brauner, New York City, of counsel, for petitioner.
Charles Oliphant, Theron L. Caudle, Washington, D.C., Harry Baum, Washington, D.C., Ellis N. Slack, Lee A. Jackson, Special Assistants to Attorney General for respondent.
Before L. HAND, Chief Judge, and CHASE and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The only question upon these appeals is whether the partnerships formed by the taxpayers in 1943 were within the statutory definition of that word.1 The Supreme Court has recently three times dealt with similar situations,2 and from these decisions we understand that they present instances of the more general test laid down in Gregory v. Helvering:3 i.e., whether an association, or joint venture, which satisfies all formal requirements and may be valid as between the parties, has been created to promote the conduct of their business in any other way than by reducing taxes. That this makes motive a test of taxability is true enough; but it is equally true that it makes it so only when the reduction of taxes is the sole motive. That does not mean that 'business' may not be so conducted as best to keep down taxes; but it does mean that keeping down taxes is not of itself 'business'. We should not be justified in holding that, judged by that test, the Tax Court was 'clearly erroneous' in holding that the 'joint venture' at bar was not a 'partnership.'
Orders affirmed.
Sec. 3797(a)(2), Title 26 U.S.C.A.: 'The term 'partnership' includes a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or other unincorporated organization, through or by means of which any business * * * is carried on.'
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Tower, 327 U.S. 280, 66 S.Ct. 532, 90 L.Ed. 670, 164 A.L.R. 1135; Lusthaus v. Commissioner, 327 U.S. 293, 66 S.Ct. 539, 90 L.Ed. 679; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Culbertson, 337 U.S. 733, 69 S.Ct. 1210, 93 L.Ed. 1659
293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266, 70 L.Ed. 596, 97 A.L.R. 1355