Smith v. Commissioner

1965 T.C. Memo. 224, 24 T.C.M. 1145, 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 106
United States Tax Court·Decided August 18, 1965·No. Docket Nos. 4534-63, 4535-63, 4600-63. .·Unpublished

Opinion

Hollis C. Smith, et al. 1 v. Commissioner.
Smith v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 4534-63, 4535-63, 4600-63. .
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1965-224; 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 106; 24 T.C.M. (CCH) 1145; T.C.M. (RIA) 65224;
August 18, 1965
deQuincy V. Sutton and W. E. Logan, Hatten Bldg., Gulfport, Miss., for the petitioners. Robert W. Goodman, for the respondent.

SCOTT

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

SCOTT, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in the income tax of petitioner Hollis C. Smith and petitioners Lester E. and Opal G. Thomas for the calendar year 1960 in the amounts of $130.02 and $155, respectively, and determined deficiencies in the income tax of petitioners Thomas Edward Kellar, Jr. *107 , and Irene D. Kellar for the calendar years 1959 and 1960 in the amounts of $296.36 and $361.70, respectively.

Certain issues raised in the petition in the case of Hollis C. Smith were conceded at the trial by petitioner, leaving for our decision the common issue in these consolidated cases of whether petitioners were required to include in their taxable income, and if so were entitled to deduct, amounts paid to them as reimbursement for expenses of meals and lodging incurred while away from the houses which were maintained as their family residences.

Respondent, by letter dated July 16, 1965, notified the Court that he conceded the only issue tried and that he had notified one of counsel for petitioners of the concession he intended to make, but petitioner's counsel "refused to settle the cases on this basis because he wants the Court to render an opinion." The Court accepts respondent's concession and on this basis decides the only litigated issue in favor of petitioners. However, since no settlement agreement of the parties has been filed with the Court, it is deemed necessary that an outline of the basic facts be stated as well as the Court's conclusion to accept respondent's*108 concession.

Findings of Fact

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly.

Hollis C. Smith (hereinafter referred to as Smith) filed his individual Federal income tax return for the calendar year 1960 with the district director of internal revenue at Jackson, Mississippi, giving his home address as R 3, Meadville, Mississippi.

Lester E. and Opal G. Thomas, husband and wife, filed a joint Federal income tax return for the calendar year 1960 with the district director of internal revenue at Jackson, Mississippi, giving their address as Rt. #2, Blue Mountain, Mississippi.

Thomas Edward, Jr., and Irene D. Kellar, husband and wife, filed a joint Federal income tax return for each of the years 1959 and 1960 with the district director of internal revenue at Jackson, Mississippi, giving their address on each of these returns as Osyka, Mississippi.

During 1960 Smith was married and had one child. During 1960 and for some months prior thereto Smith's family resided in a home in Meadville, Mississippi, which Smith owned.

During 1960 and for some time prior thereto Lester E. Thomas (hereinafter referred to as Thomas) owned a home in Blue Mountain, Mississippi, *109 in which his family resided.

During each of the years 1959 and 1960 Thomas Edward Kellar, Jr., (hereinafter referred to as Kellar) rented a house in Osyka, Mississippi in which his wife and children resided throughout these years.

During part of the year 1960 Smith and Thomas were both employed as weight inspection station operators by the Office of the Motor Vehicle Comptroller of the State of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi. Smith commenced his employment as a weight inspection station operator on February 1, 1960, and Thomas, on June 6, 1960.

During the years 1959 and 1960, Kellar was employed as a weight inspection station operator by the Office of Motor Vehicles Comptroller of the State of Mississippi.

The State of Mississippi, through the Office of the Motor Vehicle Comptroller, Jackson, Mississippi, operates approximately 23 weight inspection stations throughout the State of Mississippi. These stations are located near the borders of the State on the main highways leading into and out of the State. They are located at the following points in Mississippi: Corinth, Walnut, Penton, Hernando, Holly Springs, Lulu, Leland, Vicksburg, Natchez, Centreville, Osyka, Poplarville, *110Columbia, Bay St. Louis, Orange Grove, Lucedale, Waynesboro, Kewanee, Columbus, Gattman, Fulton, and Jackson. The Office of the Motor Vehicle Comptroller also operates a portable weight inspection station. The stationary scales are generally manned by four employees working on 8-hour shifts. These shifts generally are from 12:01 a.m. to 8 a.m., 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and 4 p.m. to 12 m. Generally one man is at the weight inspection station at all times and each employee is off one day a week. The fourth employee at the weight station substitutes for the individual who is off from work. The majority of the weight inspection stations are located near small towns and in some instances they are several miles away from the nearest town or city.

The purpose of the weight inspection stations is to aid in the enforcement and administration of the laws of the State of Mississippi with reference to the levying and collection of taxes on gasoline, oil, and other petroleum products; the laws relating to the grades, standards and specifications of gasoline, oil and other petroleum products; the laws relating to the levying and collection of motor vehicle privilege license taxes, or other motor vehicle*111 taxes; the laws relating to the size and weight of vehicles operating or to be operated upon the roads, streets or highways of the State of Mississippi, or with reference to other physical qualifications of any vehicle to be operated on such roads, streets or highways; laws with reference to the nature and extent of any cargo being or to be transported over the roads, streets or highways of the State. It is the duty of all employees on duty at any weight inspection station to enforce the provisions of the laws relating to the above matters, and in the performance of their duties such employees have the right to wear uniforms and bear arms, and have the author

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

Smith v. Commissioner, 1965 T.C. Memo. 224, 24 T.C.M. 1145, 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 106 (tax 1965).

1965 T.C. Memo. 224 (Smith v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.