Lewis Hanford Kessler, & Kay Bethard Kessler v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 838 F.2d 1215 (6th Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Lewis Hanford Kessler, & Kay Bethard Kessler v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 838 F.2d 1215 (6th Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
56 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Commissioner
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Commissioner
unknown court · Her · signal: see · confidence high
Wendland v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 355 (1982)) , review of the Commissioner's exercise of discretion under section 6081 (see Estate of Gardner v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 989 , 999 (1984)) , and application of the First Amendment to the Constitution ; see Kessler v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1285 (1986) , affd. without published opinion 838 F.2d 1215 (6th Cir. 1988) (compare 87 T.C. at 1287 -1292 with 87 T.C. at 1293 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci America, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
General Eng’g Corp. v. Martin Marietta Alumina, Inc., 783 F.2d 352, 356-57 (3d Cir.1986); see also Snider v. Lone Star Art Trading Co., Inc., 672 F.Supp. 977, 982 (E.D.Mich.1987), aff'd, 838 F.2d 1215 (6th Cir.1988).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci America, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
General Eng'g Corp. v. Martin Marietta Alumina, Inc., 783 F.2d 352, 356-57 (3d Cir.1986); see also Snider v. Lone Star Art Trading Co., Inc., 672 F.Supp. 977, 982 (E.D.Mich.1987), aff'd, 838 F.2d 1215 (6th Cir.1988).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Mid-State Fertilizer Co. v. Exchange National Bank of Chicago
N.D. Ill. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Snider v. Loan Star Art Trading Co., 659 F.Supp. 1249, 1255-56 , opinion upon reconsideration, 672 F.Supp. 977 (E.D.Mich.1987), aff'd by unpublished order, 838 F.2d 1215 (6th Cir.1988). 4 It is clear that violations of § 1962(c) only require a causal relationship between the predicate racketeering acts and injury; there is no requirement of injury caused by a pattern of racketeering.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hawkins
unknown court · Nor · signal: see also · confidence low
Ed. 2d 597 , 120 S. Ct. 2480 (Scalia, J., dissenting)(2000), (referring to "that stringent mode of constitutional analysis our cases refer to as 'strict scrutiny,' which requires that the restriction be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest."); see also Kessler v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1285 , 1290 (1986) , affd. 838 F.2d 1215 ↩ (6th Cir. 1988) . 4.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lewis Hanford Kessler, and Kay Bethard Kessler
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
87-1610.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Feb 8, 1988.
838 F.2d 1215
Unpublished

838 F.2d 1215

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Lewis Hanford KESSLER, and Kay Bethard Kessler, Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 87-1610.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 8, 1988.

1

Before NATHANIEL R. JONES and MILBURN, Circuit Judges, and JOINER, District Judge.[*]

ORDER

2

These pro se petitioners appeal the tax court's decision disallowing a deduction for expenses incurred in the practice of religion. The appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon consideration of the record and the briefs, the panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

3

Petitioners alleged that I.R.C. Sec. 170 is unconstitutional because it does not authorize a deduction for expenses incurred in religious practice by those who do not belong to organized religions. The tax court held (1) that petitioners' expenses were not contributions deductible under I.R.C. Sec. 170; (2) that the statute does not constitutionally discriminate against petitioners; (3) that petitioners lacked standing to challenge the statute under the establishment clause of the first amendment; and (4) that petitioners' remaining allegations were without merit.

4

Upon review, we conclude that the decision of the tax court is proper. Accordingly, the decision of the deficiency entered April 14, 1987, is affirmed for the reasons stated by the tax court in its opinion of December 8, 1986. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable Charles W. Joiner, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation