# Raymond Tank and Elizabeth Tank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · September 18, 1959 · 270 F.2d 477

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9447000

## Case

- **Full name:** Raymond TANK and Elizabeth Tank, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 18, 1959
- **Citations:** 270 F.2d 477; 4 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5495; 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3354
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Allen
- **Judges:** Allen, McALLISTER, Thornton
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9447000

## Opinion text

ALLEN, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result upon the authority of Loesch & Green Construction Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 211 F.2d 210 .
I do not concur in certain parts of the opinion. It seems to me that the holding of the majority of the court that the trial court “completely ignored or disregarded what appears to be a substantial quantity of reliable testimony without giving any explanation therefor,” is both inaccurate and unfortunate. This is a question of considerable importance because accusations of this kind are made so frequently on motions for new trial and in appellate and certiorari proceedings. Judges of the finest character and standing are constantly attacked upon this alleged ground and for this court to hold that a trial court ignored the evidence will open the door to increased attacks in this direction. This is particularly true if the record herein does not sustain the holding.
To me the trial court’s opinion, which covers some 12 pages of the printed record, and parts of which are included in the majority opinion herein, demonstrates that the trial court considered the evidence exhaustively and gave an explanation for its construction of it. Where the trial court erred was in its conclusion that, when appellants had offered evidence of various witnesses as to the existence of a casualty and the Commissioner offered no evidence to the contrary, appellants had not met their burden of proof. Loesch & Green Construction Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra, 211 F.2d 212 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9447000. Public record. Not legal advice.