and deus ex machina of the plan for increasing his family's net earnings by decreasing the taxes accruing on them, no one would have any difficulty in seeing the arrangement for what it is, another attempt of the earner of the income to have his cake and eat it too, vicariously, indeed, for the present through his son." He likened it to the scheme before the Supreme Court two decades earlier in Lucas v. Earl, where the justices had disallowed a man's attempt to avoid taxes on half his income through a contract with his wife. Hutcheson went on to lament the difficulty courts had in seeing through the obfuscatory use of the term "partnership" in these cases: That August, the Batmans' petition to the Fifth circuit for a rehearing was denied. Later that year the Supreme Court denied their petition for certiorari, ending the case. Subsequent proceedings The Batmans challenged a later IRS finding, relying on the first case, that no partnership had existed in the years 1946 and 1947 either. Again the Batmans challenged it in court. The case went again to the Fifth Circuit, which in 1956 ruled in their favor. Hutcheson, who again wrote for the panel, distinguished the two cases by one factor: Gerald's testimony. "Twenty-five years old on this trial and still an active partner with his father, eleven years after the beginning of their association, he was the chief witness," the judge wrote. "His testimony, including cross-examination, occupied thirty-six pages of the record. Clear, direct, positive, and convincing, it fully supported the partnership claim for 1946 and 1947 ... Taking it over all, it presents a clear picture of a true farming partnership of father and son, entered into as a part of a plan, earlier evidenced in the gifts of land and cattle to the son for making his son a successful farmer." References External links 1951 in United States case law United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit cases United States Tax Court cases United States taxation and revenue case law Ochiltree County, Texas