Erlandson v. Commissioner

1958 T.C. Memo. 218, 17 T.C.M. 1077, 1958 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 2
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedDecember 31, 1958
DocketDocket No. 65621.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1958 T.C. Memo. 218 (Erlandson v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Erlandson v. Commissioner, 1958 T.C. Memo. 218, 17 T.C.M. 1077, 1958 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 2 (tax 1958).

Opinion

George Y. Erlandson v. Commissioner.
Erlandson v. Commissioner
Docket No. 65621.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1958-218; 1958 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 2; 17 T.C.M. (CCH) 1077; T.C.M. (RIA) 58218;
December 31, 1958

*2 Petitioner received wages for his services aboard a ship owned by the United States and operated by a private shipping firm under a general agency contract. Held, the wages were paid by the United States or an agency thereof and thus they were not tax-exempt under section 911(a), I.R.C. of 1954. Robert W. Teskey, 30 T.C. 456, followed.

Ralf H. Erlandson, Esq., 1935 Washington Street, Milwaukee, Ore., for the petitioner. Jack T. Fuller, Esq., for the respondent.

FORRESTER

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

FORRESTER, Judge: The Commissioner has determined a deficiency in the petitioner's income tax in the amount of $1,960.38 for the calendar year 1954. The*3 sole issue for determination is whether the petitioner is entitled to a partial exemption for the seaman's wages he earned while serving aboard an American ship operating between ports in Japan and Korea, under section 911(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

Findings of Fact

Most of the facts have been stipulated and are included herein by this reference.

The petitioner, a citizen of the United States, filed his income tax return for the calendar year 1954 with the director of internal revenue for the district of Oregon.

In January 1952, the petitioner signed shipping articles at Portland, Oregon, to serve as Second Officer aboard the M/V Jumper Hitch.

At the trial of this case, respondent contested petitioner's claimed presence in a foreign country as prescribed by section 911(a)(2), Internal Revenue Code of 1954; however, respondent has now conceded this issue. We adopt respondent's language as our finding:

"* * * the petitioner, during the 18 consecutive months immediately preceding April 10, 1954, was present in the territorial waters of a 'foreign country or countries during at least 510 full days' in that period*4 and received compensation for the services he performed abroad 'from sources without the United States.'"

The United States of America owned the Jumper Hitch. Through and by the Director, National Shipping Authority of the Maritime Administration, Department of Commerce, the United States entered into a general agency agreement for the operation of the ship with Pacific Far East Line, Inc. This Service Agreement, dated April 6, 1951, was contract number MA-82-GAA, and in part provided the following:

"THIS AGREEMENT, made as of April 6, 1951, between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (herein called the 'United States') acting by and through the Director, National Shipping Authority of the Maritime Administration, Department of Commerce, and, PACIFIC FAR EAST LINE, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, (herein called the 'General Agent'):

"ARTICLE 1. APPOINTMENT OF GENERAL AGENT. The United States appoints the General Agent as its agent and not as an independent contractor, to manage and conduct the business of vessels assigned to it by the United States from time to time and accepted by the General Agent.

"ARTICLE 2. ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT. The*5 General Agent accepts the appointment and undertakes and promises so to manage and conduct the business for the United States, in accordance with such directions, orders or regulations not inconsistent with this Agreement as the United States has prescribed, or from time to time may prescribe, and upon the terms and conditions herein provided, of such vessels as have been or may be by the United States assigned to and accepted by the General Agent for that purpose.

"ARTICLE 3. DUTIES OF THE GENERAL AGENT. For the account of the United States, in accordance with such directions, orders, regulations, forms and methods of supervision and inspection as the United States may from time to time prescribe (or in the absence of such directions, orders, regulations, forms and methods of supervision and inspection, in accordance with reasonable commercial practices and/or the use of customary commercial forms), in an economical and efficient manner, and exercising due diligence to protect and safeguard the interests of the United States in connection with the duties prescribed in this Agreement and without prejudice to its rights under Article 6 hereof, the General Agent (solely as agent of*6 the United States and not in any other capacity) shall:

* * *

"(b) Collect, deposit, remit, disburse and account for all monies due the United States arising in connection with activities under or pursuant to this Agreement, and to the extent disbursements made by the General Agent pursuant to this Agreement are recoverable from insurance, the General Agent shall take such steps as may be appropriate to effect such recovery for the account of the United States.

"(d) Procure the Master of the vessels operated hereunder, subject to the approval of the United States. The Master shall be an agent and employee of the United States, and shall have and exercise full control, responsibility and authority with respect to the manning, navigation and management of the vessel. The General Agent shall procure and make available to the Master for engagement by him the officers and men required by him to fill the complement of the vessel.

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

Related

Teskey v. Commissioner
30 T.C. 456 (U.S. Tax Court, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1958 T.C. Memo. 218, 17 T.C.M. 1077, 1958 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erlandson-v-commissioner-tax-1958.