*1 .748 question is of character SWAN, CHASE, The third PATTER- papers The (cid:127)similar to the second. motion SON, pendency of disclose that during brokerage account appeal stock PER CURIAM. dispute closed. A sold and the account in Novem was decided This case part of only all or as to whether arisen reported in opinion The is
ber 1939. proceeds belong to Mrs. Gold- the resulting concluded 759. could have was or stein. di remanded with is cause follows: “The appeal. trial presented on the con judgment modify rections to advisory without an judge must decide it costs are opinion. No formity opinion by us. party.” Thereafter to either awarded Finally, as to the is raised filed in the dis of this court was mandate trict court ei to are awarded of “No costs meaning been en judgment has but no only Obviously relates party.” the ther present motion By tered thereon. district appellate court costs. mandate what the parties state ask us issue. costs not an of ob proper method' means. This mandate, if of the taining a clarification mandate opinion nor the Neither necessary. Individual clarification is any, the matters clarification as needs involved in Cup Service Cup Co. v. Public Drinking motion is this motion. The Co., 410. 262 F. denied. opinion respects our In certain dis findings of fact made reversed question posed judge. One trict present is whether Rule F.R.C. motion 723c, P., following section entered on quires judgment to be facts as found embody mandate dis opinion. is a matter for the This our determine. judge to trict REVE OF INTERNAL COMMISSIONER appeal. an issue Rule 52 was not LEASE SYNDI HORSESHOE NUE v. substance, not mandate deals Our CATE. judgment to be en with the form tered, No. 9134. regard it do function and we not our advisory give on such as this to a motion Fifth Circuit. Circuit Court ' judgment. opinion as to the form March question relates to the second A respect entered in judgment be held should gift of an automobile which appeal on dis The record set aside. be at the date car had value closed that and a value of $225 transfer trans to set the brought when the suit aside; disclose that Mrs. fer did car, as the disposed of had Goldstein the fact. papers now indicate motion appeal only held it aside. We should be set transfer should Whether in a would result be. directing a return merely judgment its return judgment directing car, or in depreciation in accounting for with an use, inor transferee’s through the value at the date for its judgment value money ques of suit at the date of transfer appeal argued on the tions that the trial decided never been and have They decide them. He must judge. on this mo this court properly before
tion.
HOLMES, Judge. Circuit Upon petition to review a decision decide must was, during or not the year 1932, the tax an association within meaning of 1111(a) (2) the Revenue Act of Int.Rcv.Acts, and, such, as corporation. as inelastic said that no rule question, can advanced to settle the variety due of circumstances under arise, which but that facts case, must control its determination. Morrissey Commissioner, 296 U.S. 289, 80 56 S.Ct. presented by and, stipulation, here in necessary decision, sofar as to the follows: In the several owners in a tract of land Texas executed a mineral Edgar Finley, lease thereon Fullwood, T. P. J. Drilling and the Patterson Com- corporation, pany, pursuant to an parties, ment between said under the terms required which the lessees to or- were ganize having 350 units aof par each, units, value of sell $100 and, from proceeds, drill an well oil property. The consideration to the royalty, lessors was yearly rental 1/8 per acre, and 35 units. Finley, Fullwood, and the Patterson Drilling Company assumed the name Syndicate, Horseshoe Lease divided their joint in the interest lease into fractional many parts, parts they and sold as of said desired, delivering purchasers as- signment parts of one or more fractional in purchase. accordance with their Under provisions of assignment, as- signors contracted to drill a well their operate, equipment, market, and to manage, proceeds account for all and thereof. Each purchaser executed in favor of as- attorney, signors a empowering to act for them behalf of co- all. relating all matters prop- owners to the syndicate, thereby erty of the vesting Youngman Key, E. Sp. F. and Sewall management and control in the three attor- Atty. Gen., Assts. Clark, Samuel O. provision neys in fact. made for Atty. Jr., Gen., Wenchel, Asst. P. J. perpetuation Counsel, Chief Revenue, Bureau of Internal created, for or the succession or substitu- Marshall, Sp. R. Atty., and Claude of Internal Bureau attorneys tion of fractional Revenue, Washington, both of by assignment purchased parts readily were C., petitioner. D. for many re-assignment, transferable Atkinson, Dallas, Tex., Geo. S. for transfers made. well con- respondent. assignors to be drilled tracted by them, SIBLEY, paid any for additional HOLMES, drilled were out of wells producing. provided Ex- contemplated existence was wells then or for, although no other stipulation, there was the undivided interests cepting this readily as- liability assignment favor of the transferable limitation of death of earnings any the enter- holder would affect' signees. The net pris'e periodically were *3 computed syndicate. life of management the their was obligations with incur the co-owners vested among and divided surplus all, burdening was no appeared; no there was limitation interests created, paid. liability. personal, of di- were to be No no salaries officers or elected, held, rectors no meetings no manner, operating in this Organized and by-laws enacted, no trust declaration of successfully, and, was drilled first well the made, and the unit had no voice holders producing later, well was another sometime syndi- the of the affairs first. The drilled from the cate. was therefrom net derived income with the accordance the co-owners stated, undisputed From above by reported them in their ment, fairly a reasonable inference fact syndi- tax returns. income individual be drawn that was not as for the partnership return a cate filed sociation within the statute. 1932, commissioner claimed year and the Therefore, there substantial evidence corporation return should have that a support effect, finding of board filed, creating here. thereby the issue and its conclusion of law that spondent tax as income The determination Lucas, corporation was correct. Cf. syndicate, depends upon whether the Cir., Co., 5 Commissioner v. Extension Oil operated, a cor organized resembles Brouillard, 65; F.2d Cir., v. 47 Commissioner part nearly it poration than does a more 154; Myers 10 70 F.2d v. Commis exactly. being either Com nership, not F.2d 86; sioner, Cir., 7 89 Commissioner Brouillard, Cir., 10 F.2d 70 missioner v. 587; Gerstle, 95 v. v 9 F.2d Commissioner 340, 154; Helvering, App.D.C. 67 Bert v. Syn B. Whitcomb Coca N. Cola fact, . question 92 This is F.2d 491. dicate, 5 95 also See Appeals, under the Board of 1111(a) (3), Revenue 47 ofAct facts, that, purposes stipulated found 26 Stat. U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Acts. syndicate laws, the more This find nearly partnership. resembled a Affirmed. upheld by ing 'be if must there it, support evidence even is substantial (con- Judge fairly though conflicting might inferences curring specially). by reasonable men from the un be drawn disputed Chicago facts. South Coal & agree majority opin- I the result Bassett, Dock v. S.Ct. Co. reaches and with most of what is said ion in’it. —, 26, 1940. Feb. I statement it disagree taxpayer constituted an- that whether the by property The sole owned is, have, evidence we association on the on, syndicate was a mineral real es lease think, is, I holdings various owners tate. law, that is in sense that no other represented by stock, were not shares conclusion could be drawn un- from the but lease; undivided fractional interests disputed facts one than the property was in title this, In such case the decision drew. of affirmance owners of were there the lease them. ground rests that of, realty. fore in common Mc tenants have, record, might Board Thomason, Tex.Civ.App., 210 Entire v. of two drawn either one inferences Bell, 563; Tex.Civ.App., Crabb S.W. fact, and we are bound inference had cen S.W. drew, ground but on other it that no management, it achieved tralized by powers but _by attorney per- than one drew was executed inference continuity missible. holder, election.