John Melnik and Judith Melnik v. United States

Ninth Circuit

John Melnik and Judith Melnik v. United States

521 F.2d 1065, 36 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5667, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13006

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 25, 1975

Docket74-1927

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 521 F.2d 1065 (John Melnik and Judith Melnik v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John Melnik and Judith Melnik v. United States, 521 F.2d 1065, 36 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5667, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13006 (9th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The appeal in this tax case is from the action of the district court in granting summary judgment to the United States on a claim by the taxpayers for the de-ductibility of educational expenses.

The district court applied Treasury Regulation § 1.162-5(b)(3) to Melnik, an Internal Revenue Agent doing field audits, and determined that his expenditures in acquiring a law degree were made to qualify him for a new trade of business and were, therefore, nondeductible. The taxpayers paid and sued for a refund. Melnik challenges the interpretation of the regulation by the court and also its constitutionality on fifth amendment due process grounds. The court below denied relief on both grounds, 73-2 U.S.Tax.Cas. 19521 (C.D. Cal.1973).

A similar claim was made by a taxpayer and rejected by the tax court in Weiszmann v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 1106 (1969), and we affirmed the decision. Weiszmann v. Commissioner, 443 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1971). That case is dispositive of the present appeal and we therefore affirm the decision of the district court.

Judgment affirmed.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The appeal in this tax case is from the action of the district court in granting summary judgment to the United States on a claim by the taxpayers for the de-ductibility of educational expenses.

The district court applied Treasury Regulation § 1.162-5(b)(3) to Melnik, an Internal Revenue Agent doing field audits, and determined that his expenditures in acquiring a law degree were made to qualify him for a new trade of business and were, therefore, nondeductible. The taxpayers paid and sued for a refund. Melnik challenges the interpretation of the regulation by the court and also its constitutionality on fifth amendment due process grounds. The court below denied relief on both grounds, 73-2 U.S.Tax.Cas. 19521 (C.D. Cal.1973).

A similar claim was made by a taxpayer and rejected by the tax court in Weiszmann v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 1106 (1969), and we affirmed the decision. Weiszmann v. Commissioner, 443 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1971). That case is dispositive of the present appeal and we therefore affirm the decision of the district court.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

521 F.2d 1065, 36 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5667, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-melnik-and-judith-melnik-v-united-states-ca9-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack