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
Ronald F. Weiszmann and Deborah C. Weiszmann, Petitioners-appellants, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 443 F.2d 29
March 29, 1971 Rehearing Denied April 29, 1971
Ronald F. Weiszmann, of Weiszmann & Wayman, Golden, Colo., for petitioners-appellants.
Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., K. Martin Worthy, Chief Counsel, Meyer Rothwacks, Paul M. Ginsburg and William K. Hogan, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent-appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, HAMLEY and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The decision of the Tax Court is affirmed. We approve the Tax Court opinion, Weiszmann v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 52 T.C. 1106.
Taxpayer sought to deduct law school expenses incurred while he was part-time patent clerk and patent trainee of Marathon Oil Company. When he completed his law school work, no patent attorney's job was open at Marathon. Weiszmann went elsewhere.
In our view, the lack of high probability of or assurance of permanent employment by Marathon militates against the taxpayer.
We reject the equal protection argument made here. He cites the deductibility of teachers' college expenses (when required to go to school) when they end up as principals. We think that there was a justifiable classification in the instant case. Being a teacher is a sine qua non for a principal's job (unless you own your own school), while having been a patent trainee is not a prerequisite to being a patent attorney.