Graske v. Commissioner

20 T.C. 418, 1953 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 153
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMay 21, 1953
DocketDocket No. 38702
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 20 T.C. 418 (Graske 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
Graske v. Commissioner, 20 T.C. 418, 1953 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 153 (tax 1953).

Opinion

OPINION.

Arundell, Judge:

The issues in this case involve the exemptions and deductions which may be taken by a married taxpayer filing a separate income tax return. Respondent has held that petitioner could not claim an exemption credit for his wife, nor could he take an optional standard deduction in excess of $500.

Petitioner’s contentions are based on two misconceptions of the meaning of the pertinent provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. His first error lies in his insistence that his form 1040 for 1950 was neither a separate return nor a joint return, but rather an individual return.

As we understand that term, an individual return is one on which personal income is reported, as distinguished from a corporate or other return. An individual return may be the joint return of a married couple, the separate return of a married person, or the separate return of a single person. It is clear from the facts set forth above that petitioner was married and that no joint return was intended or filed. There can be no question, then, that the form 1040 filed by petitioner for the calendar year 1950 was a separate return filed by a married person. Whether the form 1040 filed by Lee M. Graske was a return or a mere claim for refund has no bearing on the nature of petitioner’s return, although he apparently attached some importance to that question. Section 23 (aa) (1) (A)1 of the Internal Revenue Code expressly provides that in the case of a married individual with adjusted gross income of $5,000 or more filing a separate return, the standard deduction shall be $500. Therefore, respondent was entirely correct in disallowing that portion of the standard deduction in excess of $500.

Petitioner’s second error is his interpretation of sections 352 and 1622 (h) (1) (D)3 as authorization for an exemption credit of $600 for his spouse. Section 1622 (h) serves only to guide employers in determining the amounts to be withheld from an employee’s wages. It is designed to cause the withholding from wages of the approximate amount of taxes for which the average employee will ultimately be liable. It does not purport to determine the exemptions which a taxpayer may take against net income in his return, that being the function of section 25.4

Section 35 does not help petitioner. It provides that “The amount deducted and withheld * * * shall be allowed as a credit * * * against the tax imposed * * Petitioner does not contend that the full amount withheld was not allowed as a credit. It follows that respondent properly disallowed the claimed exemption credit for petitioner’s spouse.

Decision will be entered for the respondent.

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

Related

Lyszkowski v. Commissioner
1995 T.C. Memo. 235 (U.S. Tax Court, 1995)
Goldsboro Christian Schools, Inc. v. United States
436 F. Supp. 1314 (E.D. North Carolina, 1977)
Boland v. Commissioner
1960 T.C. Memo. 199 (U.S. Tax Court, 1960)
Epps v. Commissioner
26 T.C. 843 (U.S. Tax Court, 1956)
Graske v. Commissioner
20 T.C. 418 (U.S. Tax Court, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 T.C. 418, 1953 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graske-v-commissioner-tax-1953.