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

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 16, 1961

Docket13521

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 290 F.2d 817 (Kendall H. Shoyer and Agnes P. Shoyer v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 F.2d 817, 7 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1389, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kendall-h-shoyer-and-agnes-p-shoyer-v-united-states-ca3-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack