Hartsell v. Wright

182 F. Supp. 725, 5 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 833, 1960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4417
CourtDistrict Court, D. Idaho
DecidedFebruary 15, 1960
DocketCiv. A. No. 2164
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 182 F. Supp. 725 (Hartsell v. Wright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Idaho primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hartsell v. Wright, 182 F. Supp. 725, 5 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 833, 1960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4417 (D. Idaho 1960).

Opinion

FRED M. TAYLOR, District Judge.

The above entitled cause came on for trial before this court, sitting without a jury, on October 22, 1959, the parties to this action having waived trial by jury, the Plaintiffs appearing by and through their attorney, L. Charles Johnson, Esquire, of Johnson and Olson, of Pocatello, Idaho, and the Defendant being represented by Kenneth Bergquist, Esquire, office of United States Attorney, of Boise, Idaho, and John J. Kilgariff,. Esquire, of Washington, D. C., of the United States Department of Justice, the issue having come on for trial based upon the complaint of the plaintiff, answer of the defendant and stipulation of the parties;

Oral and documentary evidence was introduced by and on behalf of the plaintiff and no witnesses were called by the defendant; and the court, being fully advised in the premises, now makes and finds the following Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.

Findings of Fact

The Court finds:

I.

That at all times relevant to this matter the plaintiffs reside and resided in the city of Pocatello, State of Idaho, and are a marital community under the laws of the State of Idaho. . That this action arises under the laws of the United States, the Revenue Acts of 1939 and 1954, as amended, and under Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and 1402.

II.

That at all times relevant the Defendant was, and now is, District Director of the Internal Revenue Service, United States Treasury Department for the District of Idaho and is a resident of said District.

III.

That plaintiffs for the calendar year of 1955 executed a joint individual Income Tax Return and paid the income tax shown as due thereunder as said return was completed in the amount of $1,017.-54; and that taxpayers had made payments and credits by prepayment in the-total sum of $1,365.20 and applied through such return for a refund of $347.66; that said return was properly mailed and received by the District Director of Internal Revenue or Collector-of Internal Revenue, and the said return as received in evidence was as filed with, the defendant by plaintiffs.

IV.

That the taxpayers in this cause received during the calendar year 1955 income of $9,647.12 as follows:

J. F. Pritchard & Co. $ 3,350.46

Securities Credit Corp. 2,415.00

Kaiser Engineers 1,351.40

Morrison-Knudsen Co. 1,174.26

8,291.12

That, in addition, the taxpayer, Richard Y. Hartsell, received during the calendar year 1955, a so-called “isolation pay” from his employers as follows:

Kaiser Engineers $324.00

Morrison-Knudsen Co. 198.00

J. F. Pritchard & Co. 834.00

1,356.00

Total as aforesaid $9,647.12

[727]*727V.

That thereafter there was alleged an income tax liability of taxpayers for calendar year 1955 of $1,566.13 plus interest, and Defendant mailed notices of such deficiency to taxpayer; and taxpayer admitted as due on deficiency the sum of $1,365.20 being withholding tax taken by the taxpayers in itemized deduction; and taxpayers contest and assert as erroneous the inclusion of $1,356.00 travel or isolation pay received by Plaintiff, Richard V. Hartsell, during the year 1955 in the taxable income of taxpayers. As further explanation the pre-payment credit in the amount of $40.82 FICA was paid to taxpayers after filing of a refund claim.

VI

That thereafter on or about March 18, 1958, the taxpayers did pay the deficiency alleged the $548.59 by allowing the District Director to credit a prepayment of $347.66 and remitting to the District Director the cheek of $222.03; and on or about May 21, 1958, the taxpayers signed and properly and duly filed with the District Director where the assessment was made a claim for refund of $468.72 and the said sum of $452.58 or such proper sum as would represent the inclusion of $1,356 in taxable income was paid to and collected by said District Director; that thereafter in a letter dated October 21, 1958, taxpayers received a disallowance of such claim; and that more than six months passed since the filing of the above claim until plaintiffs filed this action and before filing said action, plaintiffs received only the denial of their claim.

VII.

That plaintiff, Richard V. Hartsell, is, and was during all the year 1955, a non-itinerant pipefitter and plumber by trade, and a member of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the United States and Canada, A. F. of L., Local Union Number 648, and began his apprenticeship after leaving the Armed Forces of the United States prior to 1955, and at all relevant times has pursued said trade wholly and solely in the area under the jurisdiction of said Local Number 648.

VIII.

That the area under the jurisdiction of Local Union Number 648 during 1955 was the whole of Southeastern Idaho, and the said local union maintains its permanent business office in Pocatello, Idaho, and during the year 1955, the taxpayer used the local union business office as his only business office in the carrying on of his trade during the entire year and all of his employers during that year made their first contact with the Plaintiff, Richard V. Hartsell, through said local union office in Pocatello, Idaho.

IX.

The taxpayers have maintained a home as a marital community and are permanent residents of, and in, Pocatello, Idaho.

X.

That during 1955 the taxpayer, Richard V. Hartsell, traveled from Pocatello, Idaho, to the Atomic Energy Commission job site for each of three employers: J. F. Pritchard & Co., Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., and Kaiser Engineers, that the Atomic Energy Commission (known also as A. E. C.) site was in 1955, and now is, the property of the United States Government, maintained exclusively for atomic energy research. It was, and is, so located in the midst of a desert area near Arco and Blackfoot in southeastern Idaho, and is, and was in 1955, approximately 30 miles by 50 miles; that a reasonable cost and expense of travel in an automobile as undertaken by the taxpayer, Richard V. Hartsell, during the year 1955 was 8iji per mile for each mile traveled and this being the taxpayer’s depreciation, gasoline and other automobile expenses involved in such travel.

[728]*728XI.

That the mileage between Pocatello, Idaho, and the work site of the taxpayer, Richard V. Hartsell, near Arco, Idaho, is 70 miles one way and 140 miles round trip and that the car and travel expense on making this trip is $11.20.

XII.

That the relevant employment of the taxpayer, Richard V. Hartsell, during 1955 was as follows: The Plaintiff was employed with the J. F. Pritchard & Co. on the Atomic Energy Commission site from June, 1954, to April, 1955. There was a period in which he was not employed with said company on said site, but returned and commenced his employment on the said site with said company in July, 1955, and continued there until September, 1955, and that while employed in his trade with J. F. Pritchard & Co.

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

Related

Aguirre v. Commissioner
1984 T.C. Memo. 66 (U.S. Tax Court, 1984)
Brown v. Commissioner
1983 T.C. Memo. 217 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)
Hillgren v. Commissioner
1980 T.C. Memo. 101 (U.S. Tax Court, 1980)
Sohaiby v. Commissioner
1965 T.C. Memo. 287 (U.S. Tax Court, 1965)
Hall v. Commissioner
1964 T.C. Memo. 157 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)
Gooderham v. Commissioner
1964 T.C. Memo. 158 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)
Sansone v. Commissioner
41 T.C. 277 (U.S. Tax Court, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
182 F. Supp. 725, 5 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 833, 1960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartsell-v-wright-idd-1960.