Kendall H. Shoyer and Agnes P. Shoyer v. United States

Third Circuit

Kendall H. Shoyer and Agnes P. Shoyer v. United States

290 F.2d 817, 7 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1389, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4487

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided May 16, 1961·No. 13521·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the Government in an action by a taxpayer to recover taxes which he paid following an assessment for a deficiency. The taxpayer (with his wife joined because they made a joint return) deducted from his 1953 income tax a sum which he had spent as a candidate for reelection to judicial office. He was appointed for an interim term by the Governor and under Pennsylvania law ran for election the next year. The expenditure was reasonable in amount, in fact, very modest. There is no question as to the accuracy of the deduction claimed.

With all sympathy for a fellow judge who, unlike a federal judge, has to seek reelection, we do not think this question is open. The compelling authority is McDonald v. Commissioner, 1944, 323 U.S. 57, 65 S.Ct. 96, 89 L.Ed. 68. It is true that the McDonald case was decided when the Dobson rule was in effect. Dobson v. Commissioner, 1943, 320 U. S. 489, 64 S.Ct. 239, 88 L.Ed. 248. But the question in the McDonald case was not one which Dobson concerned in any way whatever. The tax problem, therefore, is the same now as it was at the time McDonald was decided. Nor do we think that the fact that the taxpayer had a favorable endorsement in a plebiscite by the Philadelphia Bar Association imposes any duty on him to pay out money in running for office. At most it gives him a favorable recommendation to the voting public by an organization which knows more about his work than the public does.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the Government in an action by a taxpayer to recover taxes which he paid following an assessment for a deficiency. The taxpayer (with his wife joined because they made a joint return) deducted from his 1953 income tax a sum which he had spent as a candidate for reelection to judicial office. He was appointed for an interim term by the Governor and under Pennsylvania law ran for election the next year. The expenditure was reasonable in amount, in fact, very modest. There is no question as to the accuracy of the deduction claimed.

With all sympathy for a fellow judge who, unlike a federal judge, has to seek reelection, we do not think this question is open. The compelling authority is McDonald v. Commissioner, 1944, 323 U.S. 57, 65 S.Ct. 96, 89 L.Ed. 68. It is true that the McDonald case was decided when the Dobson rule was in effect. Dobson v. Commissioner, 1943, 320 U. S. 489, 64 S.Ct. 239, 88 L.Ed. 248. But the question in the McDonald case was not one which Dobson concerned in any way whatever. The tax problem, therefore, is the same now as it was at the time McDonald was decided. Nor do we think that the fact that the taxpayer had a favorable endorsement in a plebiscite by the Philadelphia Bar Association imposes any duty on him to pay out money in running for office. At most it gives him a favorable recommendation to the voting public by an organization which knows more about his work than the public does.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Kendall H. Shoyer and Agnes P. Shoyer v. United States, 290 F.2d 817, 7 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1389, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4487 (3d Cir. 1961).

Pincite

290 F.2d 817 (Kendall H. Shoyer and Agnes P. Shoyer v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related