Appeal of Estate of Pennell

4 B.T.A. 1039
United States Board of Tax Appeals·Decided September 25, 1926·No. Docket No. 2588·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

OPINION.

SteRNhagen :

The payment by an individual for general personal legal services, including the preparation of a will, are obviously not “ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business,” as provided in section 214(a) (1) of the Revenue Act of 1918. If any part thereof could be so classified the burden of allocation must be on the petitioner and not on the Board. We need not therefore discuss the question whether, since the payment of the entire bill of $20,000 was equally [1040] divided as between 1920 and 1921 without any earmarking, the petitioner could properly allocate the $3,000 entirely to the first payment in 1920.

Judgment for the Commissioner.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal of Estate of Pennell, 4 B.T.A. 1039 (bta 1926).

4 B.T.A. 1039 (Appeal of Estate of Pennell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Merians v. Commissioner
60 T.C. 187 (U.S. Tax Court, 1973)
Rosenthal v. Commissioner
1970 T.C. Memo. 332 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)
Schultz v. Commissioner
50 T.C. 688 (U.S. Tax Court, 1968)
Lansill v. Commissioner
17 B.T.A. 413 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1929)
Pennell v. Commissioner
4 B.T.A. 1039 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1926)