McLoughlin v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

McLoughlin v. Commissioner

34 B.T.A. 963, 1936 BTA LEXIS 622

United States Board of Tax Appeals·Decided August 19, 1936·No. Docket No. 80484.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[966] OPINION.

Arundell:

This proceeding is in all material respects like that of Clarence M. Freedman, 34 B. T. A. 956, decided this day. The arguments of the parties are along the same lines in both cases and it is unnecessary in this case to repeat our views on the several points urged. It is sufficient to say briefly in this case, as we said at length in the other, that we are not satisfied that petitioner can be classified as an employee of the state engaged in carrying on an essential governmental function and that in any event the fact of his compensation being from private funds and not from those of the state precludes the allowance of exemption from Federal income tax.

Decision will be entered for the respondent.

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

[966] OPINION.

Arundell:

This proceeding is in all material respects like that of Clarence M. Freedman, 34 B. T. A. 956, decided this day. The arguments of the parties are along the same lines in both cases and it is unnecessary in this case to repeat our views on the several points urged. It is sufficient to say briefly in this case, as we said at length in the other, that we are not satisfied that petitioner can be classified as an employee of the state engaged in carrying on an essential governmental function and that in any event the fact of his compensation being from private funds and not from those of the state precludes the allowance of exemption from Federal income tax.

Decision will be entered for the respondent.

McLoughlin v. Commissioner, 34 B.T.A. 963, 1936 BTA LEXIS 622 (bta 1936).

Pincite

34 B.T.A. 963 (McLoughlin v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related