Hunter v. United States

Second Circuit

Hunter v. United States

219 F.2d 69

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 3, 1955

DocketNo. 132, Docket 23125

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 219 F.2d 69 (Hunter v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hunter v. United States, 219 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

Taxpayer contends that the attorney’s fees are deductible under Section 23(a) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 23(a) (2), as “ordinary and necessary expenses * * * for the production * * * of income * * He argues that, as the settlement reduced the amount of his liability for alimony and thus increased his taxable net income, it constituted the “production of income.” We cannot agree. We think the “production” of income means the creation of increased gross income, not a reduction of liabilities or an increase of net taxable income by a reduction of allowable deductions in computing net income. Lykes. v. United States, 343 U.S. 118, 72 S.Ct. 585, 96 L.Ed. 791; Howard v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 202 F.2d 28.

Affirmed.

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

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

Taxpayer contends that the attorney’s fees are deductible under Section 23(a) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 23(a) (2), as “ordinary and necessary expenses * * * for the production * * * of income * * He argues that, as the settlement reduced the amount of his liability for alimony and thus increased his taxable net income, it constituted the “production of income.” We cannot agree. We think the “production” of income means the creation of increased gross income, not a reduction of liabilities or an increase of net taxable income by a reduction of allowable deductions in computing net income. Lykes. v. United States, 343 U.S. 118, 72 S.Ct. 585, 96 L.Ed. 791; Howard v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 202 F.2d 28.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 F.2d 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-united-states-ca2-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack