Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, Appellant, v. William T. Briggs and Myrtle Briggs, Appellees
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit. - 238 F.2d 53
Oct. 23, 1956
Walter R. Gelles, Washington, D.C. (Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry Baum, Washington, D.C., Donald E. Kelley, U.S. Atty., and Robert Swanson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Denver, Colo., with him on the brief), for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Stephen H. Hart and John Fleming Kelly, Denver, Colo., amici curiae.
Before HUXMAN, MURRAH and PICKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The sole question in this case is whether the living costs of a managing partner, and of his family, who is required under the partnership agreement to live at the hotel and manage the same are deductible business expenses of the partnership under Section 23(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C.A. 23(a)(1). The trial court in a proper case before it held that they were and the Government has appealed.
In Commissioner v. Doak, 4 Cir., 234 F.2d 704, and in Commissioner v. Moran, 8 Cir., the Fourth and Eighth Circuit Courts in well reasoned cases, upon facts indistinguishable from the facts in this case, held that such expenses were not deductible. We agree with the philosophy of those cases.
The judgment is accordingly reversed and the case is remanded with directions to enter judgment for the Government.