John C. Martin, Jr., and Peri S. Martin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Fourth Circuit

John C. Martin, Jr., and Peri S. Martin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

363 F.2d 35, 18 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5117, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5772

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 17, 1966·No. 10344·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The question presented in this case is whether amounts expended by the taxpayer, John C. Martin, Jr., during the taxable year 1962 for tuition, books and supplies in attending night law school classes are deductible as ordinary or necessary business expenses under Section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Based upon the evidence presented to it the Tax Court concluded that the-educational classes in question were not. undertaken by the taxpayer primarily f or the purpose of maintaining or improving-his skills as a patent examiner nor to-meet any express requirements incident thereto, and therefore failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 1.162-5 of the Treasury Regulations on Income Tax (1954 Code). The issue presented to the Tax Court for determination was primarily factual, and in our judgment, the conclusion reached by it was not clearly *36 erroneous and accordingly is binding upon us. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 80 S.Ct. 1190, 4 L.Ed.2d 1218 (1959); Condit v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 329 F.2d 153 (6th Cir. 1964).

The decision of the Tax Court is Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The question presented in this case is whether amounts expended by the taxpayer, John C. Martin, Jr., during the taxable year 1962 for tuition, books and supplies in attending night law school classes are deductible as ordinary or necessary business expenses under Section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Based upon the evidence presented to it the Tax Court concluded that the-educational classes in question were not. undertaken by the taxpayer primarily f or the purpose of maintaining or improving-his skills as a patent examiner nor to-meet any express requirements incident thereto, and therefore failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 1.162-5 of the Treasury Regulations on Income Tax (1954 Code). The issue presented to the Tax Court for determination was primarily factual, and in our judgment, the conclusion reached by it was not clearly *36 erroneous and accordingly is binding upon us. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 80 S.Ct. 1190, 4 L.Ed.2d 1218 (1959); Condit v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 329 F.2d 153 (6th Cir. 1964).

The decision of the Tax Court is Affirmed.

John C. Martin, Jr., and Peri S. Martin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 363 F.2d 35, 18 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5117, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5772 (4th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

363 F.2d 35 (John C. Martin, Jr., and Peri S. Martin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related