Walker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Third Circuit

Walker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

63 F.2d 351, 12 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 188, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 3424, 1933 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9036, 12 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 188

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 5, 1933

Docket4776

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 63 F.2d 351 (Walker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 63 F.2d 351, 12 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 188, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 3424, 1933 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9036, 12 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 188 (3d Cir. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This appeal by a taxpayer from an income tax assessment falls within a narrow compass. The pertinent statute, Revenue Act 1921, § 214 (a) (1), 42; Stat. 239; Revenue Act 1924, § 214 (a) (1), 26 USCA § 955 (a) (1), provides for the deduction of “all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid * * * in carrying on any trade or business,” and the question involved is “whether fees paid by petitioner to her attorneys in a suit to recover additional income from certain trusts of which she was beneficiary are deductible from her gross income.” Statement of the facts is to decide the ease. The petitioner was trying to surcharge her trustees in the administration of the trust. In so doing she was not engaged in any trade or business.

The Tax Board rightly held she was not entitled to the deduction, and its order is affirmed.

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

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This appeal by a taxpayer from an income tax assessment falls within a narrow compass. The pertinent statute, Revenue Act 1921, § 214 (a) (1), 42; Stat. 239; Revenue Act 1924, § 214 (a) (1), 26 USCA § 955 (a) (1), provides for the deduction of “all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid * * * in carrying on any trade or business,” and the question involved is “whether fees paid by petitioner to her attorneys in a suit to recover additional income from certain trusts of which she was beneficiary are deductible from her gross income.” Statement of the facts is to decide the ease. The petitioner was trying to surcharge her trustees in the administration of the trust. In so doing she was not engaged in any trade or business.

The Tax Board rightly held she was not entitled to the deduction, and its order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 F.2d 351, 12 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 188, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 3424, 1933 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9036, 12 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca3-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack