Dodd Distributing Company and General Wholesale Company v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Dodd Distributing Company and General Wholesale Company v. United States

329 F.2d 935, 13 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 984, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5991

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 20, 1964

Docket20691

StatusPublished

This text of 329 F.2d 935 (Dodd Distributing Company and General Wholesale Company v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dodd Distributing Company and General Wholesale Company v. United States, 329 F.2d 935, 13 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 984, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5991 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This suit for refund of income taxes deals with the question of deductibility as an ordinary and necessary business expense of payments made by the appellants, wholesale liquor dealers in the State of Georgia, to the former State Revenue Commissioner, T. V. Williams. Assuming the facts all to be as contended for by the appellants, we conclude that payments made by them to the state official charged with the duty of enforcing the State liquor laws to enable him to carry out this State-directed function can not, under any theory of the law, be considered ordinary and necessary business expenses. The jury merely found what we conclude would have been appropriate for the trial court itself to decide, i. e., these expenses were not deductible from the income of these appellants for federal income tax purposes.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This suit for refund of income taxes deals with the question of deductibility as an ordinary and necessary business expense of payments made by the appellants, wholesale liquor dealers in the State of Georgia, to the former State Revenue Commissioner, T. V. Williams. Assuming the facts all to be as contended for by the appellants, we conclude that payments made by them to the state official charged with the duty of enforcing the State liquor laws to enable him to carry out this State-directed function can not, under any theory of the law, be considered ordinary and necessary business expenses. The jury merely found what we conclude would have been appropriate for the trial court itself to decide, i. e., these expenses were not deductible from the income of these appellants for federal income tax purposes.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

329 F.2d 935, 13 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 984, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dodd-distributing-company-and-general-wholesale-company-v-united-states-ca5-1964.