Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Walker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

63 F.2d 351

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1933-01-05
Topic
general

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge. This appeal by a taxpayer from an income tax assessment falls within a narrow compass. The pertinent statute, Revenue Act 1921, § 214 (a) (1), 42; Stat. 239; Revenue Act 1924, § 214 (a) (1), 26 USCA § 955 (a) (1), provides for the deduction of “all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid * * * in carrying on any trade or business,” and the question involved is “whether fees paid by petitioner to her attorneys in a suit to recover additional income from certain trusts of which she was beneficiary are deductible from her gross income.” Statement of the facts is to decide the ease. The petitioner was trying to surcharge her trustees in the administration of the trust. In so doing she was not engaged in any trade or business.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Walker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
WALKER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,63 F.2d 351(3rd Cir. 1933)
WALKER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 4776.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
January 5, 1933.
Rehearing Denied January 30, 1933.
Petition to Review an Order of the United States Board of Tax Appeals.

Petition by Gertrude D. Walker, opposed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to review an order of the Board of Tax Appeals.

Affirmed.
Henry T. Dorrance, of Utica, N.Y., J.G. Korner, Jr., of Washington, D.C., and Mercer B. Tate, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.

G.A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and John G. Remey, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
This appeal by a taxpayer from an income tax assessment falls within a narrow compass. The pertinent statute, Revenue Act 1921, § 214(a)(1), 42 Stat. 239; Revenue Act 1924, § 214(a)(1), 26 USCA § 955(a)(1), provides for the deduction of "all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid * * * in carrying on any trade or business," and the question involved is "whether fees paid by petitioner to her attorneys in a suit to recover additional income from certain trusts of which she was beneficiary are deductible from her gross income." Statement of the facts is to decide the case. The petitioner was trying to surcharge her trustees in the administration of the trust. In so doing she was not engaged in any trade or business.

The Tax Board rightly held she was not entitled to the deduction, and its order is affirmed.