Pollock v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Pollock v. Commissioner

10 B.T.A. 1297, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3905

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedMarch 12, 1928

DocketDocket No. 11980.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 10 B.T.A. 1297 (Pollock v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Board of Tax Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pollock v. Commissioner, 10 B.T.A. 1297, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3905 (bta 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

[1300]*1300OPINION.

SteRNhagen:

The very full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances under which these expenditures were made establishes clearly that they were ordinary and necessary expenses paid by the petitioner jn carrying on the occupation in which he was engaged for livelihood. The amount is expressly limited to such as was spent, not for his personal convenience or enjoyment, but for account of his office and which he had no election but to make. His income depended on them — at least the continuance of his naval standing, from which his income was derived, required them and would have been seriously jeopardized had he failed to make them. We are of opinion that the amount is a proper deduction. See D. C. Jackling, 9 B. T. A. 312.

Reviewed by the Board.

Judgment will be entered for the petitioner.

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

[1300]*1300OPINION.

SteRNhagen:

The very full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances under which these expenditures were made establishes clearly that they were ordinary and necessary expenses paid by the petitioner jn carrying on the occupation in which he was engaged for livelihood. The amount is expressly limited to such as was spent, not for his personal convenience or enjoyment, but for account of his office and which he had no election but to make. His income depended on them — at least the continuance of his naval standing, from which his income was derived, required them and would have been seriously jeopardized had he failed to make them. We are of opinion that the amount is a proper deduction. See D. C. Jackling, 9 B. T. A. 312.

Reviewed by the Board.

Judgment will be entered for the petitioner.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 B.T.A. 1297, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pollock-v-commissioner-bta-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack