L. & C. Mayers Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Second Circuit

L. & C. Mayers Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

131 F.2d 309, 30 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 276, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2797

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 5, 1942

DocketNo. 9

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 131 F.2d 309 (L. & C. Mayers Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) 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

L. & C. Mayers Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 131 F.2d 309, 30 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 276, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2797 (2d Cir. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The single issue is whether the Tax Court shall be affirmed in refusing to disturb a ruling of the Commissioner, reducing the allowance for salaries of the taxpayer’s president and secretary-treasurer from $30,000 apiece to $20,000. We do not think it necessary to state the details of the business, for it is clear that such reductions as these are beyond the reach of our review and possibly even of that of the Tax Court. We do not indeed mean that we could not review any cut, however drastic; if the Commissioner had, for example, allowed no more than $2,400 we might well have been obliged to reverse the order affirming his ruling. But until it is apparent that the allowance exceeds any possibly reasonable limits, we should not intervene; at least not unless there is evidence of a current rate in closely similar businesses, such as practically is seldom, if ever, available. It is true that in the case at bar the taxpayer made an effort to prove what were the usual salaries in similar businesses but the testimony was not so compelling that the Tax Court was bound to accept it.

Order affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The single issue is whether the Tax Court shall be affirmed in refusing to disturb a ruling of the Commissioner, reducing the allowance for salaries of the taxpayer’s president and secretary-treasurer from $30,000 apiece to $20,000. We do not think it necessary to state the details of the business, for it is clear that such reductions as these are beyond the reach of our review and possibly even of that of the Tax Court. We do not indeed mean that we could not review any cut, however drastic; if the Commissioner had, for example, allowed no more than $2,400 we might well have been obliged to reverse the order affirming his ruling. But until it is apparent that the allowance exceeds any possibly reasonable limits, we should not intervene; at least not unless there is evidence of a current rate in closely similar businesses, such as practically is seldom, if ever, available. It is true that in the case at bar the taxpayer made an effort to prove what were the usual salaries in similar businesses but the testimony was not so compelling that the Tax Court was bound to accept it.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 F.2d 309, 30 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 276, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/l-c-mayers-co-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca2-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack