Dunphy v. Commissioner

41 B.T.A. 489, 1940 BTA LEXIS 1174
CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals
DecidedMarch 1, 1940
DocketDocket Nos. 96765, 97645.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 B.T.A. 489 (Dunphy v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Board of Tax Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dunphy v. Commissioner, 41 B.T.A. 489, 1940 BTA LEXIS 1174 (bta 1940).

Opinion

[491]*491OPINION.

Van Fossan :

The petitioner seeks credit for income and absenteeism taxes paid to the Republic of Mexico under the provisions of section 131 (a) and (b) of the Revenue Acts of 1934 and 1936.1

The respondent contends that the petitioner may not receive such credit because of the limitations of section 131 (b) and argues that the petitioner’s income from the Mexican Candelaria Co., S. A., was received as compensation for services rendered within the United States and is income from sources therein. Consequently, the re-[492]*492spondeni claims, there being no income from sources without the United States, the credit here sought can not exceed zero.

However, section 131 (e)2 of the same acts specifically refers to the provisions of section 119 as determining the income derived from sources without the United States. Section 119 (a) (3) and 119 (c) (3) 3 include compensation for labor or personal services performed in or without the United States in the items of gross income which shall be treated as income from sources within or without the United States, respectively. The crux of the case at bar is the phrase “compensation for labor for personal services performed in the United States.” If the petitioner performed such services without the United States it is clear that she is entitled to the credit which she claims.

The record discloses that the petitioner inherited a business controlled originally by her father and later by her husband. Upon her husband’s death, she was elected president of the company. She received an annual salary of $24,000 as such officer. The record does not reveal that she performed any services whatever for the company, either in the United States or in Mexico. That she performed no such services without the United States is inferable from the stipulated fact that she was not absent from this country at any time during 1935 or 1936. In any event, the burden is upon her to prove the contrary. See Louis D. Beaumont, 25 B. T. A. 474; affd., 73 Fed. (2d) 110; certiorari denied, 294 U. S. 715.

Nor was the petitioner’s salary paid to her as interest, dividend, or any other item of gross income which is elsewhere comprehended in, and designated by the statute as a basis for credit. She must come within the classification of section 119 (c) (3) to entitle her to the credit.

[493]*493In the absence of the proof of credit required by the statute the petitioner is not entitled as a credit to the amounts paid by her as income and absenteeism taxes to the Republic of Mexico.

Decisions will he entered v/nd&r Bule 50.

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

Related

Dunphy v. Commissioner
41 B.T.A. 489 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 B.T.A. 489, 1940 BTA LEXIS 1174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunphy-v-commissioner-bta-1940.