Phillips v. Commissioner

1965 T.C. Memo. 268, 24 T.C.M. 1457, 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 64
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedOctober 5, 1965
DocketDocket Nos. 1361-63 - 1364-63.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1965 T.C. Memo. 268 (Phillips v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Phillips v. Commissioner, 1965 T.C. Memo. 268, 24 T.C.M. 1457, 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 64 (tax 1965).

Opinion

Mabel Phillips, an Individual, and Mabel Phillips, Surviving Spouse of Clifton D. Phillips, et al. 1 v. Commissioner.
Phillips v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 1361-63 - 1364-63.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1965-268; 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 64; 24 T.C.M. (CCH) 1457; T.C.M. (RIA) 65268;
October 5, 1965
Bernard Shevach, for the petitioners. John D. Picco and Eli Blumenfeld, for the respondent.

FAY

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

FAY, Judge: The Commissioner determined deficiencies in petitioners' income taxes as follows:

DocketTaxableDefi-
No.PetitionerYearciency
1361-63Mabel Phillips, an indi-
vidual, and Mabel
Phillips, surviving
spouse of Clifton D.
Phillips1960$ 713.10
1362-63Eugene K. Wootten and
Virginia L. Wootten1960454.01
1363-63Harley D. Flesvig and
Eleanor C. Flesvig1960992.89
1961861.46
1364-63Raymond W. Erickson
and Ella A. Erick-
son1960$ 857.02
19611,162.35
The only issue for decision is whether strike benefits received by petitioners during the years in issue are includable*67 in their gross income.

Findings of Fact

Some of the facts have been stipulated, are so found, and the stipulation of facts, together with the exhibits attached thereto, is incorporated herein by this reference.

Clifton D. Phillips (hereinafter referred to as Phillips) and Mabel Phillips were husband and wife during 1960. They filed their joint Federal income tax return for said year with the district director of internal revenue for the District of Oregon. Phillips is now deceased, and Mabel Phillips, as surviving spouse of Phillips, and Mabel Phillips, individually, are the petitioners in Docket No. 1361-63.

Petitioners Eugene K. Wootten (hereinafter referred to as Wootten) and Virginia L. Wootten are husband and wife. They filed their joint Federal income tax return for the year 1960 with the district director of internal revenue for the District of Oregon.

Petitioners Harley D. Flesvig (hereinafter referred to as Flesvig) and Eleanor C. Flesvig are husband and wife. They filed their joint Federal income tax returns for the years 1960 and 1961 with the district director of internal revenue for the District of Oregon.

Petitioners Raymond W. Erickson (hereinafter referred*68 to as Erickson) and Ella A. Erickson are husband and wife. They filed their joint Federal income tax returns for the taxable years 1960 and 1961 with the district director of internal revenue for the District of Oregon.

Phillips, Wootten, Flesvig, and Erickson will sometimes hereinafter be referred to collectively as petitioners.

Petitioners were members of the Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' International Union, Local No. 48 (hereinafter referred to as International Union and Local Union). At the time of the strike, Flesvig was president of Local No. 48. Petitioners were journeymen stereotypers. Other members of the Union included apprentices, as well as other journeymen stereotypers.

The members of the Local Union were formerly employed by the Oregonian Publishing Company or the Journal Publishing Company, publishers of two daily and Sunday newspapers in Portland, Oregon, (hereinafter referred to as the Oregonian and the Journal).

Members of the Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union performed the job of casting metal cylinders which, when locked into place on the presses, print the news, pictures, editorials, and advertising content of the newspaper. At the time of the*69 strike 29 members of the Local Union were employed by the Oregonian and 27 by the Journal.

The dispute between the Local Union and the two newspapers related to hourly wage rates, certain fringe benefits, and the following: Whether foremen had to belong to the Local Union; whether other employees who had already worked 35 hours a week were to be paid overtime wages when replacing absent employees; and whether the newspapers had the right to designate the number of operators on new machines.

The Local Union and the newspapers sought to negotiate their differences with a series of conferences which were unsuccessful.

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

Related

United States v. Kaiser
363 U.S. 299 (Supreme Court, 1960)
Hagar v. Commissioner
43 T.C. 468 (U.S. Tax Court, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1965 T.C. Memo. 268, 24 T.C.M. 1457, 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-commissioner-tax-1965.