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
Herbert Schellenbarg and Clara Schellenbarg, Petitioners, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit. - 283 F.2d 871
October 21, 1960
William R. Seaman and Jerry L. Cowan, Cincinnati, Ohio, Frost & Jacobs, Cincinnati, Ohio, and William Harrelson, Faust & Harrelson, Troy, Ohio, on brief, for petitioner.
William Friedlander, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief, for respondent.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Judge, and CECIL and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges.
The above cause coming on to be heard upon the record, the briefs of the parties and argument of counsel in open court, and the court being duly advised,
Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the decision of the Tax Court be and is hereby affirmed, except as to the double imposition of additions to tax, for failure to file an estimated tax return, and for substantial under-estimation of estimated tax. It is conceded by respondent that under the authority of Acker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 258 F.2d 568, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 80 S.Ct. 144, 4 L.Ed.2d 127, such double imposition of additions to tax is invalid. The case is, accordingly, remanded to the Tax Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. 31 T.C. 1269.