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
Henry B. Mikelberg and Rose R. Mikelberg, His Wife, Petitioners, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.henry B. Mikelberg, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.rose R. Mikelberg, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. - 234 F.2d 34
Argued May 9, 1956 Decided June 5, 1956 Rehearing Denied June 26, 1956
Leonard W. Sarner, Philadelphia, Pa. (Wolkin, Sarner & Cooper, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for petitioners.
Fred E. Youngman, Washington, D. C. (Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, A. F. Prescott, Stanley P. Wagman, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before GOODRICH, KALODNER and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court which affirms certain deficiencies and penalties assessed against the taxpayers for the taxable years 1944 through 1949. The taxpayers are practicing physicians. They kept no books and the government's case depended largely on the net worth method of establishing deficiencies. The taxpayers do not claim that under the circumstances this was an improper method. They do claim, and their case is very ably presented, that there was an insufficient sum fixed as their net worth at the beginning of the tax period in question. There are no new principles of law involved in the case. The questions turn on various matters of fact some of which were presented by the testimony of the taxpayers themselves. A reading of the whole record leads us to believe that the trial judge was exceedingly generous in his treatment of them. His conclusion "that their testimony was unreliable and unworthy of belief in many respects" is abundantly established by a reading of the record.
The decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.