Raymond Saltzman v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 227 F.2d 49 (3rd Cir. 1955). · Go Syfert
Search
Raymond Saltzman v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 227 F.2d 49 (3rd Cir. 1955). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
36 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Allegheny Jefferson Millwork, LLC (dcd, 2008-03-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1955 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1955 1990 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Allegheny Jefferson Millwork, LLC
D.D.C. · 2008 · confidence medium
“A court of equity will not intervene ‘where there are equal equities or where there are no equities.’ ” Heifetz Metal Crafts, Inc. v. Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co., 264 F.2d 435, 439 (8th Cir.1959) (quoting Pacific Royalty Co. v. Williams, 227 F.2d 49, 58 (10th Cir.1955)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Leo E. Kingston, Jr.
10th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hackney v. Newman Memorial Hosp., Inc., 621 F.2d 1069 , 1071 (10th Cir.), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 982 , 101 S.Ct. 397 , 66 L.Ed.2d 244 (1980); Baldridge v. Hadley, 491 F.2d 859, 864 (10th Cir.), cert, denied, 417 U.S. 910 , 94 S.Ct. 2608 , 41 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974); Pacific Royalty Co. v. Williams, 227 F.2d 49, 57 (10th Cir.1955), cert, denied, 351 U.S. 951 , 76 S.Ct. 847 , 100 L.Ed. 1474 (1956). 3 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pinney & Topliff v. Chrysler Corporation
S.D. Cal. · 1959 · confidence medium
Southern Development Co. of Nevada v. Silva, 1888, 125 U.S. 247, 250 , 8 S.Ct. 881 , 31 L.Ed. 678 ; Restatement, Contracts, §§ 470-471; California Civil *804 Code, § 1572, subds. 2 and 4, § 1709, § 1710, subd. 4; Pacific Royalty Company v. Williams, supra note 11; Wislnick v. Frye, 1952, 111 Cal.App.2d 926, 930-931 , 245 P.2d 532 ; Gonsalves v. Hodgson, 1951, 38 Cal.2d 91, 100 , 237 P.2d 656 ; Berkey v. Halm, 1950, 101 Cal.App.2d 62, 69 , 224 P.2d 885 ; Gagne v. Bertran, 1954, 43 Cal.2d 481, 487-489 , 275 P.2d 15 . 13 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Baker
Iowa · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pacific Royalty Co. v. Williams, 227 F.2d 49, 56 (10th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 951 , 76 S.Ct. 847 , 100 L.Ed. 1474 (1956).
cited Cited "see" Williams v. Pacific Royalty Co.
10th Cir. · 1957 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pacific Royalty Company, a corporation v. Williams, 10 Cir., 227 F.2d 49 , 51, certiorari denied 351 U.S. 951 , 76 S. Ct. 847 , 100 L.Ed. 1474 . .
cited Cited "see" Curtis Company (Formerly Curtis Engineering Company) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
3rd Cir. · 1956 · signal: see · confidence high
See Saltzman v. Commissioner, 14 TCM 1955-18, CCH Dec. 20,836 (M), affirmed per curiam, 3 Cir., 1955, 227 F.2d 49 ; Mauldin v. Commissioner, 10 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 714 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kinnear-Weed Corporation v. Humble Oil & Refining Company
5th Cir. · 1971 · signal: see also · confidence low
Merrill-Stevens Dry Dock Company v. M/V 'Laissez Faire', 421 F.2d 430 (5th Cir. 1970); see also Pacific Royalty Company v. Williams, 227 F.2d 49 (10th Cir. 1955); 37 Am.Jur.2d, Fraud and Deceit 468; 37 C.J.S.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.
5th Cir. · 1971 · signal: see also · confidence low
Merrill-Stevens Dry Dock Company v. M/V “Laissez Faire”, 421 F.2d 430 (5th Cir. 1970); see also Pacific Royalty Company v. Williams, 227 F.2d 49 (10th Cir. 1955); 37 Am.Jur.2d, Fraud and Deceit § 468; 37 C.J.S.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Raymond SALTZMAN
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
11616_1.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Nov 1, 1955.
227 F.2d 49
Raymond J. Bradley, Philadelphia, Pa. (John Rogers Carroll, Michael von Moschzisker, Thomas D. McBride, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for petitioner., S. Dee Hanson, Washington, D. C. (H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, C. Guy Tadlock, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
McLaughlin, Kalodner, Staley.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

From our own examination we think the Tax Court’s conclusion that the properties in question were held by petitioner primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business within the meaning of Section 117(a) and (j) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, as amended, 26 U.S.C.A. § 117(a, j), is fully justified by the record.

The decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.