text:
    Appeal of EDWIN O. FAULKNER.
    Docket No. 5883.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Melvin D. Wilson, Esq., for the petitioner.

      A. Galder MaoJcay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $684.86 for the calendar year 1922.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1922, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $684.86.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Littleton

license: Public Domain

text:
    Appeal of BYRON L. GRAVES.
    Docket No. 6492.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      George M. Thompson, Esq., for the petitioner.

      A. Ccdder MaoJcay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $2,518.64 for the calendar year 1923.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1923, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California,'married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $2,518.54.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of BYRON L. GRAVES.
    Docket No. 6493.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      George M. Thompson, Esq., for the petitioner. -

      A. Colder Mackay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $2,969.62 for the calendar year 1921.
    FINDINGS OP PACT.
    ' During the calendar year 1921,. the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $2,969,62.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of CHARLES D’ANGELO.
    Docket No. 6890.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Charles D'Angelo pro se.

      A. Colder Mackay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $357.77 for the calendar year 1922.

      FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1922, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $357.77.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of J. J. HAGGARTY.
    Docket No. 7512.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Frank G. Butts, Esq., for the petitioner.

      A. Colder Maeltay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $2,668.81 for the calendar year 1921.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1921, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The-Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $2,668.81.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of C. C. POMEROY.
    Docket No. 6234.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Philip G. STieehy, Esq., for the petitioner.

      A. Galder Maehay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $448.09 for the calendar year 1923.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1923, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $448.09.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of ALBERT SHELBY LeVINO.
    Docket No. 6630.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Ewell D. Moore, Esq., for the petitioner.

      A. Calder Maehay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $756.38 for the calendar year 1922.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1922, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $756.38.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the-decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of GARNETT YOUNG.
    Docket No. 6445.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Garnett Young pro se.

      A. Gadder Machay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $3,552.80 for the calendar year 1923.
    FINDINGS OP PACT.
    During the calendar year 1923, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $3,552.80.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of H. RADIN.
    Docket No. 7246.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      H. Badin pro se.

      A. Colder Machay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of deficiencies for the calendar years 1921 and 1922 in the total amount of $24,629.16.

      FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar years 1921 and 1922, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the years involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said years. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his returns by the amounts reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $24,629.16.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


author: Littleton:

text:
    Appeal of W. H. PORTERFIELD.
    Docket No. 7195.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      W. H. Porterfield pro se.

      A. Galder Maekay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $838.07 for the calendar year 1921.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1921, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $838.07.
   OPINION.

Littleton:

The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of IRVIN E. KRAMER.
    Docket No. 3087.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      R. II. Cost, O. P. A., for the petitioner.

      A. Galder Machay, Esq., for the' Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $216.42 for the calendar year 1920.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar j^ear 1920, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $216.42.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of H. A. KRAMER.
    Docket No. 3088.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      II. A. Kramer pro se.

      A. Colder Maelcay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $109.81 for the calendar year 1920.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1920, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $109.81.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of ARTHUR SELLER.
    Docket No. 6191.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      J. C. Altman, Esq., and Richard 8. Goldman, Esq., for the petitioner.

      A. Galder MacJeay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $565.57 for the calendar year 1922.
    findings of fact.
    During the calendar year 1922, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $565.57.
   OPINION.,

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of L. M. VOORSANGER.
    Docket No. 5821.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Richard S. Goldman, Esq., for the petitioner.

      A. Gadder Machay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $389.37 for the calendar year 1922.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1922, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the martial community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $389.37.
   OPINION.

Littleton:

The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the 0ommissioner.


text:
    Appeal of F. M. THATCHER.
    Docket No. 5805.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      R. A. Cost, G. P. A., for the petitioner.

      A. Gadder Machay', Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $1,372.15 for the calendar year 1922.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1922, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. Át the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $1,372.15.
   OPINION.

Littleton:

The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of W. R. WILLIAMS.
    Docket No. 8173.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      B. A. Cost, C. P. A., for the petitioner.

      A. Calder Machay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $644.34 for the calendar year 1922.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1922, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $644.34.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of A. KAMP.
    Docket No. 7245.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      A. Ko/mp pro se.

      A. Colder Machay, Esq., for the Commissioner.'
    This is an appeal from the determination of deficiencies for the calendar years 1921 and 1922 in the total amount of $25,013.78.

      FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar years 1921 and 1922, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the years involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said years. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his returns by the amounts reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $25,013.18.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of FLORA LAVENSON, Executrix, Estate of GUS LAVENSON.
    Docket No. 3598.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      B. H. Cost, G. P. A., for the petitioner.

      A. Gadder Maelcay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of deficiencies for the calendar years 1919, 1920, 1921, and 1922, in the total amount of $994.99.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    Gus Lavenson died August .11, 1922. During the calendar years 1919, 1920, and 1921, and until the date of his death in 1922, he was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, Gus Lavenson and his wife filed separate returns for the years involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said years. The Commissioner held, that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income shown by his returns by the amounts reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $994.99.
   OPINION.

Littleton:

The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of A. G. EAMES.
    Docket No. 3235.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      A. G. Fames pro se.

      A. Galder Mackay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $542.45 for the calendar year 1921.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1921, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $542.45.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of E. H. KUEFFER.
    Docket No. 6164.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      E. E. Kueffer pro se.

      A. Colder Mackay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $2,299.31 for the calendar year 1923.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1923, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife.- At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $2,299,31,
   OPINION.

Littleton:

The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the'decision of the Board in .the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of HENRY SCHAEFER.
    Docket No. 5346.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      R. H. Cost, O. P. A., for the petitioner.

      A. Colder Mackay, Esg., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $713.37 for the calendar year 1922.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1922, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $713.37.
   OPINION.

Littleton:

The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of W. J. RICHARDSON.
    Docket No. 6236.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Philip G. Sheehy, Esg., for the petitioner.

      A. Colder Maelcay, Esg., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $406.45 for the calendar year 1923.

      FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1923, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $406.45.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of CONRAD SCHNEIDER.
    Docket No. 5347.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      B. H. Cost, C. P. A., for the petitioner.

      A. Colder Mackay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $2,307.82 for the calendar year 1922.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1922, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $2,307.82.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner,


text:
    Appeal of JOHN H. MINDERMAN.
    Docket No. 4179.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      R. ~R. Cost, C. P. A., for the petitioner.

      A. Colder Maclcay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    ' ■ This te an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $1,355.59 for the calendar year 1921.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1921, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $1,355.59.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of LOUIS T. HENGSTLER.
    Docket No. 6710.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Louis T. Hengstler pro se.

      A. Colder Maekay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    . This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $1,779.86 for the calendar year 1923.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1923, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $1,779.86,
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B: T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of W. J. HOTCHKISS.
    Docket No. 2308.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      G. G. Dali, Esq., for the petitioner.

      A. Calder Mackay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $12,-492.14 for the calendar year 1920.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1920, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $12,492.14.-
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of A. O. JOHNSON.
    Docket No. 1826.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Lloyd M. Robbins, Esq., for the petitioner.

      A. Calder Mackay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of deficiencies in the total amount of $7,672.07 for the calendar years 1921 and 1922.

      FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar years 1921 and 1922, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the years involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said years. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his returns by the amounts reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $7,672.07.
   OPINION.

Littleton:

- The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of CURTIS HILLYER.
    Docket No. 7219.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      J. A. Isaacson, Esq., for the petitioner.

      A. Colder Machay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $553.28 for the calendar year 1922.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1922, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $553.28.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of ALLAN HARRIS.
    Docket No. 6924.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Glaude I. Parker, Esq., and Frank G. Butts, Esq., for the petitioner.

      A. Galder Maokay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $5,095.-40 for the calendar year 1923.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1923, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $5,095.40.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of SAMUEL GOSS.
    Docket No. 4760.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Samuel Goss pro se.

      A. Gadder Maokay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of deficiencies in the total amount of $394.13 for the calendar years 1920 and 1921.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar years 1920 and 1921, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the years involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said years. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his returns by the amounts reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $394.13.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of E. C. WAGNER.
    Docket No. 1924.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      E. G. Wagner pro se.

      A. Colder Maehay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $598.31 for the calendar year 1920.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1920, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the'income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $598.31.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of HENRY FELDHUSEN.
    Docket No. 2480.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Henry Feldhusen pro se.

      A. Galder Maekay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of deficiencies in the total amount of $627.35 for the calendar years 1920 and 1921.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar years 1920 and 1921, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the years involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said years. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his returns by the amounts reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $627.35.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the eourt in United States v. Robbins 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of GUY R. KENNEDY.
    Docket No. 6068.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Guy R. Kennedy, Esq., pro se.
    ■ A. Gadder Maekay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $1,398.62 for the calendar year 1922.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1922, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $1,398.62.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the 0ommissioner.


text:
    Appeal of CURTIS HILLYER.
    Docket No. 9569.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      J. A. Isaacson, Esq., for the petitioner.

      A. Colder Maclcay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    ■ This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $2,376.10 for' the calendar year 1921. ■
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1921, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year;. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $2,376.10.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of MINNIE S. LEHN, Executrix, Estate of WILLIAM LEHN.
    Docket No. 9472.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      M. L. McLaren, O. P. A., for tbe petitioner.

      A. Galder Maclcay, Esq., for' the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of deficiencies of $338.32 and $1,184.46, respectively, for the calendar years 1920 and 1921.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    William Lehn died subsequent to 1921. During the calendar years 1920 and 1921, he was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife, Minnie S. Lehn, filed separate returns for' the years involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said years. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his returns by the amounts reported by his wife, and computed the deficiencies of $338.32 and $1,184.46.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Conwnissioner.


text:
    Appeal of W. S. HART.
    Docket No. 3233.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      W. S. Hart pro se.

      A. Colder Maclcay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $2,670.40 for the calendar year 1922.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1922, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $2,670.40.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


author: Marquette

text:
    Appeal of JACOB SAMUELS.
    Docket No. 8050.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      W. W. Spalding, Esq., for the petitioner.

      A. Colder Machay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This appeal is from the determination of a deficiency in income tax for the year 1921 in the amount of $8,462.17.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    The taxpayer is a married man living with his wife, and during the year 1921 was domiciled in the State of California. For the year 1921 the taxpayer and his wife filed separate income-tax returns, in which each reported one-half of the income of the community. The Commissioner has added to the income of the taxpayer one-half of the income of the community reported by the taxpayer’s wife and has taxed the same as income of the taxpayer.
   OPINION.

Marquette

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of WARREN H. POMEROY.
    Docket No. 7415.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Philip G. Sheehy, Esq., for the petitioner.

      A. Colder Machay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $471.41 for the calendar year 1923.

      FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1923, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married, and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $471.41.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of FRANK J. PIMENTAL.
    Docket No. 3402.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Philip G. Sheehy, Esq., for the petitioner.

      A. Colder Machay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This appeal is from the determination of a deficiency of $1,047.32, for the calendar year 1921, of which $776.59 is the amount determined to be the deficiency in tas, and $270.73 determined to be the 25 per cent penalty for failure to file the return within the time required by law.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1921, the petitioner was a resident1 and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. Petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the year involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his return by the determination of the deficiency here in question. He further held that the taxpayer was liable for the 25 per cent penalty for failure to file his return at the time required by law.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the first question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

It is alleged that the Commissioner erred in adding to the deficiency the amount of $270.73 as a delinquency penalty. No evidence has been submitted showing that this penalty was improperly asserted by the Commissioner.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of JAMES H. JONES.
    Docket No. 1820.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      J ames H. J ones pro se.

      A. Colder Machay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of deficiencies in the total amount of $18,481.71 for the calendar years 1917, 1919, and 1920.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar years 1917, 1919, and 1920, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the years involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said years. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his returns by the amounts reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $18,481.71.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question of whether the Commissioner correctly denied the petitioner the right to report, in his returns’ for the years involved, only one-half of the income of tbt-marital community, is governed by the opinion of the court in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the Board’s decision in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

The petitioner alleged that he was entitled to a deduction for the purpose of excess profits tax imposed for the year 1917 of not less than 9 per cent, for the reason that his farming and other business operations yielded a net income for the pre-war years in excess of 9 per cent on his invested capital, and that he was entitled to have his annual income for the pre-war period determined under section 205 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1917. No evidence was submitted in support of this allegation of error.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of RUTH KERR, Executrix, Estate of ALEXANDER H. KERR.
    Docket No. 3673.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Harry Schwartz, Esq., for the petitioner.

      A. Gadder Maóhay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of deficiencies of $6,390.06 for 1918, and $1,196.73 for 1922, and overassessments of $4,305.38-for 1919, $1,164.27 for 1920, and $4,676.94 for 1921.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    Alexander H. Kerr died subsequent to 1922. During the years 1918 to 1922, inclusive, he was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. At the time required by law, the petitioner and his wife filed separate returns for the years involved, each reporting one-half of the income of the marital community for said years. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the husband and increased the income as shown by his returns by the amounts reported by his wife, and computed the deficiencies and overassessments as above set forth.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the opinion of the court in. United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and the decision of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


author: ARTjndell

text:
    NORMAN A. EISNER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
    Docket No. 6028.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Norman A. Eisner pro se.

      A. Colder Maehay, Esq., for the respondent.
    This is a proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency in income tax in the amount of $1,209.06 for the year 1920. The only question involved is .whether the petitioner and his wife are entitled to report separately community income. The case was submitted on the pleadings.

      FINDINGS OF FACT.
    The petitioner is married and resides with his wife, Elsie S. Eisner, in San Francisco, Calif. For the year 1920 the petitioner and his wife filed separate income-tax returns wherein each reported one-half of the income of the marital community for the year. The Commissioner held that the entire income belonged to the petitioner and increased the income shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $1,209.06.
   OPINION.

ARTjndell

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and by the ruling of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Oom/missioner.


author: Arundell:

text:
    HUBERT C. WYCKOFF, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
    Docket No. 6357.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Hubert G. Wyckojf, Esq., pro se.

      A. Galder Maehay, Esq., for the respondent.
    This is a proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency in income tax for the calendar year 1922 in the. amount of $869.26, arising from the refusal of the Commissioner to permit the petitioner and his wife to report income on a community property basis.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    The petitioner is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California. He has been married more than twenty-five years and during all of this period has lived with his wife, Anabel Wyckoff, in California. All of the property possessed by the petitioner at any time since his marriage has been acquired in California since that time.
    The gross income of the petitioner for the year 1922 was as follows:
    Salary-$7, 500. 00
    Interest on bank deposits, etc_ 693. 09
    Income from partnership_ 7, 939. 36
    Rents-Ü:_ 1, 545.15
    Profits on sales of stocks and bonds_ 1,027.08
    Dividends on stock of domestic corporations_ 390.00
    Taxable interest on Liberty bonds_ . 66
    19,095.34

      The salary of $7,500 and income from partnership of $7,939.36 are the earnings of the petitioner from the practice of his profession. The item of $693.09, interest on bank deposits, notes, mortgages, and corporation bonds, represents, with the possible exception of $112, income on securities purchased out of earnings subsequent to 1917. The rents amounting to $1,545.15 are income from property purchased prior to 1917. The profit on the sale of stocks and bonds in the amount of $1,027.08 represents the realized increase in value of the securities occurring since 1917. The dividends of $390 on stock of domestic corporations were received on stock purchased prior to 1917.
    The net income of the petitioner for the year 1922 was $14,439.74, of which one-half, or $7,219.87 was reported by the petitioner in his income-tax return as his income, and the other half was reported by his wife. Both the petitioner and his wife paid the tax on their reported incomes, amounting in each case to $447.74.
   OPINION.

Arundell:

The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and by the, ruling of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for Che Commissioner.


author: Aettndell

text:
    LOUIS D. GREEN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
    Docket No. 5847.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Lawrence Livingston, Esq., for the petitioner.

      A. Colder Machay, Esq., for the respondent.
    This is a proceeding' for the redetermination of a deficiency in income tax for the calendar year 1923 in the amount of-$902.81, arising from the action of the Commissioner in including in the income of the petitioner that part of the community income reported by the wife of the petitioner.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the entire calendar year 1923 the petitioner was married and living with his wife, Rose S. Green, and both he and his wife were residents and citizens of the State of California.

      For the year 1923 the petitioner received as earnings from the partnership of Louis D. Green and Aaron S. Green the total sum of $27,999.56, and as commissions the sum of $5,128.88.
    Eose S. Green filed an income-tax return for the year reporting, among other items, the amount of $11,435.34 as community income received by the petitioner from the partnership, and also the amount of $2,564.44 as community commissions received by the petitioner from the partnership. The petitioner filed an income-tax return reporting as his income the amount of $11,435.35 as income from the partnership and $2,564.44 as commissions from the partnership.
    None of the property from which the income, earnings, or commissions herein referred to were derived was owned by the petitioner before-his marriage, nor was any of it acquired by gift, devise, descent or bequest after marriage.
    In the audit of the income-tax returns of the petitioner and his wife the Commissioner denied them the right to report separately one-half of the income and commissions received by the petitioner from the partnership • of which he was a member, and included in the petitioner’s income for the year the total amount of the income and commissions received from the partnership, resulting in the deficiency here involved.
   OPINION.

Aettndell

: The decision of the question involved in this proceeding is governed by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315, and by the ruling of the Board in the Appeal of D. Cerruti, 4 B. T. A. 682.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    Appeal of E. KLYMAN.
    Docket No. 6753.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Franh G. Butts, Esq., for the petitioner.

      A. Oalder Maohay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $331,34 for the calendar year 1920.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the calendar year 1920, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife, Ida Klyman.
    Ida Klyman received during the year 1920 a salary for personal services rendered by her, separately from any salary or income of her husband. This salary she included in her separate return. The Commissioner included the salary in the petitioner’s income and determined the deficiency of $331.34 here in controversy.
   OPINION.

Littleton

: The facts in this proceeding are the same as those before the Board in the Appeal of Estate of George W. Randall, 4 B. T. A. 679, in which it was held that a wife in California was entitled to file a separate return of her separate earnings.

Judgment for the petitioner.


text:
    Appeal of O. S. PARRETT.
    Docket No. 6766.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      0. 8. Parrett pro se.

      A. Colder Machay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $137.92 for the calendar year 1921.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    During the year 1921, the petitioner was a resident and citizen of California, married and living with his wife. Petitioner’s wife, a graduate and registered nurse, received certain income not disclosed by the record, for professonal services rendered. In addition she received certain income from her separate property. She filed a separate income-tax return for 1921, reporting therein the income received from her profession and from her separate property. The Commissioner held that this income should have been reported by the petitioner. Accordingly, he increased petitioner’s income for 1921 by the amount of the wife’s separate earnings and determined the deficiency here involved.
   OPINION.

Littleton:

The decision of the issue in this proceeding is governed by the decision of the Board in the Appeal of Estate of George W. Randall, 4 B. T. A. 679, in which it was held that a wife in California is permitted under the revenue statute to file a separate return of her separate earnings.

Judgment for the petitioner.


author: Arundell

text:
    SIDNEY G. MOYSE, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
    Docket No. 5967.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Sidney G. Moyse pro se.

      George E. Adams, Esq., for the respondent.
    This is a proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency in income tax of $162.01 for the calendar year 1922. The question for determination is the right of the petitioner and his wife to report separately their incomes.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    The petitioner is married and during the year 1922 lived with his wife in the State of California. Some time in 1921 the wife decided to take a position with a firm in Los Angeles and she and her husband agreed at that time that the earnings she received from the position should be her separate property. Her salary for the year 1922 amounted to $1,800, which she deposited in a bank account fn her own name and over which the husband had no control. This money was spent by the wife for such purposes as she saw fit and was not used, save for possibly a small amount, for the maintenance of the household. Prior to and during the year 1922 the household expenses were paid from allowances which the petitioner gave his wife. This allowance was in the same amount during 1922 as it had been in prior years.
    The petitioner and his wife filed individual returns for 1922, each reporting separately their salaries for the year. The Commissioner in auditing the returns added to the income reported by the petitioner the amount of $1,800 which had been returned by his wife as her separate income.
   OPINION.

Arundell

: The decision of the question presented in this appeal is governed by the decision of the Board in the Appeal of Estate of George W. Randall, 4 B. T. A. 679.

Judgment for the petitioner.


author: Aeundeld

text:
    W. A. ROTH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
    Docket No. 6012.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      Shirley E. Meserve, Esq., Hewlings Mumper, Esq., and W. H. Teasley, G. P. A., for the petitioner.

      George E. Adams, Esq., for the respondent.

      This is a proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency in income tax for the calendar year 1921 in the amount of $1,031.96. The error alleged is the action of the Commissioner in adding to the reported income of the petitioner the income of the petitioner’s wife, which she reported separately.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    The petitioner and his wife, Edith M. Both, are residents of and domiciled in the State of California. At or about the time of their marriage, in October, 1919, the petitioner and his wife agreed orally that they would share equally all their income and their expenses.
    Prior to her marriage Mrs. Both was employed as bookkeeper for the Los Angeles Lime Co. After her marriage she remained in the employ of that company and was so employed during and throughout the year' 1921. Her salary was increased from time to time as the duties of her position increased. For the year 1921 her salary was $5,309.90, which she reported in her individual income-tax return as her separate income.
    The petitioner was also employed by the Los Angeles Lime Co. during the year 1921 and in his individual income-tax return for the year he reported, among other items, the salary received from that company.
    The petitioner and his wife deposited their earnings in a joint bank account which was subject to check by either of them. The household expenses were paid from this account. From time to time they invested from this account their savings. Some of the investments stood in the names of the individuals and some were held jointly. Before making investments they consulted each other concerning them.
    In auditing the returns filed the Commissioner added to the income reported by the petitioner the salary of $5,309.90 reported separately by the wife.
   OPINION.

Aeundeld

: The issue raised by the pleadings in this case is whether the Commissioner erred in adding to the reported income of the petitioner the salary of the petitioner’s wife in the amount of $5,309.90 which she reported as her separate income. On the authority of the decision of the Board in the Appeal of Estate of George W. Randall, 4 B. T. A. 679, we hold that the Commissioner erred in this respect and on this point give judgment for the petitioner.

The petitioner devoted the greater part of his evidence and his brief to attempting to show that, under the oral agreement entered into with his wife about the time of their marriage, he and his wife are each subject to tax on one-half of their joint income, and that by the agreement their incomes and property are removed from the operation of the community property laws of California. This question is not placed before us by the pleadings and it therefore becomes unnecessary to consider it.

Order of redetermmation will Toe entered on 15 days’ notice, wider Rule 50.


author: AkuNdell

text:
    J. W. S. BUTLER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
    Docket No. 5982.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      J. W. /S. Butler, Esq., pro se.

      A. Galder Maclcay, Esq., for the respondent.
   AkuNdell

: This is a proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency in income tax for the calendar year 1923 in the amount of $1,211.51. The petitioner alleges error on the part of the Commissioner in denying to him the privilege of dividing his income between himself and his wife on the community property basis.

The appeal was submitted on the pleadings and the only facts before us are those admitted by the Commissioner in his answer. Of these the only ones material are that the petitioner is a citizen of the United States and that during the calendar year 1923 he and his wife were residents of and domiciled in the State of California. These facts are not sufficient to warrant our disturbing the action of the Commissioner.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


text:
    J. J. DUNNE, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
    Docket No. 4840.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      J. J. Dunne, Esq., pro se.

      A. CElder Maclcay, Esq., for the Commissioner.
   Arundell

: This is a proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency in income tax for the calendar year 1922 in the amount of $6,562.03. The error alleged is the action of the Commissioner in including in the income of the petitioner that part of the community income reported by the wife of the petitioner.

The appeal was submitted on the pleadings and the only facts before us are those admitted by the Commissioner in his answer. Of these the only ones material are that the petitioner is married and is a resident of the State of California. These facts are not sufficient to warrant our disturbing the action of the Commissioner.

Judgment for the Commissioner.


author: Aeundell

text:
    W. A. HAMMOND, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
    Docket No. 5385.
    Decided September 15, 1926.

      A. Colder Mac-hay, Esq., for the respondent.
   Aeundell

: This is a proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency in income tax for the calendar years 1919 and 1920 in the amount of $1,501.53. The error alleged is the refusal of the Commissioner to permit the petitioner to file his income-tax return on the community property basis, dividing the community income between himself and his wife.

The appeal was submitted on the pleadings and the only facts before us are those admitted by the Commissioner in his answer. Of these the only ones'material are that the petitioner is an individual having his principal office in San Francisco, Calif., and that during the years 1919 and 1920 he and his wife resided in the State of California. These facts are not sufficient to warrant our disturbing the action of the Commissioner.

. Judgment for the Commissioner.


author: Smith:

text:
    Appeal of VICTOR J. McQUADE.
    Docket No. 6273.
    Decided September 18, 1926.
    The evidence does not show that the good will of the taxpayer’s business had a fair market value on March 1, 1913; hence, the taxpayer did not sustain any deductible loss from the fact that he could not continue his business after national prohibition became effective in 1919.

      Watson Washburn, Esq., for the petitioner.

      P. S. Crewe, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is a proceeding for the redetermination of deficiencies in income tax for. the years 1918 and 1919, in the aggregate amount of $5,670.73. The principal point in issue is the disallowance of deductions from gross income of an amount for obsolescence of the good will of a wholesale liquor business.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    The taxpayer is a resident of Millbrook, N. Y. Prior to July 1, 1919, he was engaged in the business of wholesale liquor dealer, rectifier, and retail liquor dealer. The business was established at 11 Stone Street, New York City, in 1859, by the taxpayer’s father, under the name of Peter McQuade. Peter McQuade died in 1898 and the business thereafter was carried on by his estate until 1901 under the same name. In 1901, the taxpayer, son of Peter McQuade, took over the entire business, good will, trade-marks, etc., under the terms of his father’s will and carried it on under the same name of Peter McQuade. Owing to national prohibition he discontinued the business July 1, 1919. The principal brand sold was “ Old Galaxy Whiskey,” which brand was started in 1880 and owned exclusively by Peter McQuade. The following brands were also exclusively owned by Peter McQuade or the taxpayer:
    “ Westminster Club Dry Gin,” “ Round Tower Irish Whiskey,” both acquired about 1884; “Glen Gordon Scotch Whiskey,” “Black Watch Scotch Whiskey,” adopted about 1912; and “ Dixon Rye Whiskey,” adopted in 1912.
    In his income-tax return for 1918, the taxpayer deducted from gross income $121 spent for the purchase of tickets to entertainments. He had purchased these tickets from his customers who had in turn bought them from the promoters of certain entertainments. It was a recognized practice in the trade for the wholesale dealer to purchase these tickets from their customers or take them off their hands in order to keep in their good graces. The $121 thus spent for tickets was disallowed as a deduction from gross income by the Commissioner.
    In his return for 1919, the taxpayer failed to include in gross income $6.51, which was the amount of tax paid at the source 'upon coupons of bonds of corporations, which corporations had issued the bonds with a tax-free covenant clause. The Commissioner amended the taxpayer’s income-tax return for 1919 by adding to the gross and net income the $6.51 in question.
    In connection with his business, it had been the taxpayer’s practice for many years to invest considerable amounts of money in the purchase of warehouse receipts of whiskey in bond. The whiskey was purchased when the taxpayer had funds and when he thought the price was low. He often sold these certificates to his regular customers at considerable profit. In 1909 he had approximately $25,000 invested in these warehouse receipts and in 1913 the amo'unt was approximately $70,000. On October 25, 1918, the taxpayer sold warehouse receipts for 50 barrels of Rossville whiskey, which had been purchased by him in 1911 at a price of 26 cents per gallon. In 1918 and 1919, the taxpayer sold warehouse certificates for 594 barrels of whiskey, which had been purchased by him prior to March 1, 1913. Approximately 5 per cent of this amount was sold in 1918, and 95 per cent in 1919. The taxpayer returned the profit from the sales of these warehouse receipts by deducting from the sale price the purchase price and the expense of carrying and selling the whiskey.
    The exact computation by which the profit from the sale of this whiskey in 1918 and 1919 was determined is not in evidence by reason of the fact that the records of the business of the taxpayer are no longer in existence. The current market prices for whiskies were shown during the years 1910 to 1919, inclusive, by “ Biles’ Price Current,” a publication that was issued at frequent intervals during this entire period. Wide use was made of the quotations for different liquors during this period by persons engaged in the buying and selling of liquors. The taxpayer purchased liquors according to these quotations. The whiskey which the taxpayer sold in 1918 and' 1919 was purchased in 1911 and 1912. Biles’ Price Current quoted the price of Rossville whiskey, the kind which the taxpayer purchased in 1911 and 1912 and sold in 1918 and 1919, at 26 cents a gallon at the time the whiskey was purchased in 1911, and at 31 cents a gallon at the time the whiskey was purchased in 1912. The same authority quoted the market price on January 1, 1913, the nearest quotation date to .March 1, 1913, of the whiskey manufactured and purchased in 1911, and of that manufactured and purchased in 1912, at 34 cents and 36 cents a gallon, respectively.
    The fair market price of the Rossville whiskey sold by the taxpayer in 1918 and 1919, and acquired prior to March 1, 1913, was 34 cents a gallon at that date. By reason of computing profits upon the sale of the warehouse receipts for this whiskey in 1918 and 1919, in the manner above described, the taxpayer included in his gross and net income $266.85 for 1918 and $1,574.07 for 1919, which amounts represented only the return to him of an appreciation in value of the certificates between the date of purchase and March 1, 1913.
    The taxpayer’s father died in 1898. His whiskey business was conducted by his estate until January 1, 1902. The taxpayer then took over the business, since his father had left to him the good will, trade-marks, and copyrights of the business which the taxpayer was to receive when he was 25 years of age.

      The taxpayer gave to his mother and two sisters, who had an interest in the business, approximately $9,000 more than the market value of their shares in the tangible assets of the business.
    The value of the assets of the business at the time the taxpayer acquired them in 1902 was approximately $40,000. In 1913 the value of the assets was in excess of $100,000.
    In years prior to 1918, a considerable amount of the income of the taxpayer was attributable to dealings in whiskey warehouse receipts. Excluding from income the profits on the sale of the warehouse receipts and excluding from the capital of the business the amount of money invested in the warehouse receipts, the taxpayer’s capital and net profit from his wholesale business for the years 1909 to 1917 were substantially as follows:

    In his income-tax returns for 1918 and 1919, the taxpayer deducted from gross income $16,359.27 and $8,923.23, respectively, for obsolescence of the value of the good will of his liquor business. The Commissioner disallowed these deductions.
   OPINION.

Smith:

1. The taxpayer alleges error on the part of the Commissioner in disallowing the deduction from 1918 gross income of $121 spent for tickets of admission to entertainments which were sent to him by his customers to relieve them from a part of .the burden which they were under in buying such tickets. The evidence shows that it was a common practice for wholesale liquor dealers to take from customers a certain number of tickets of admission which the customers felt compelled to take in order to retain the good will of the people of the community in which they lived. In the light of the evidence, we are of the opinion that the amount spent in the purchase of such tickets constituted an ordinary and necessary expense of the taxpayer in the conduct of his liquor business and as such was deductible from gross income.

2. The Commissioner amended the taxpayer’s income-tax return for 1919 by adding $6.51 to both the gross income and the net income, representing the amount of income tax paid at the source by corporations which bad issued bonds with a tax-free covenant clause, the $6.51 representing the 2 per cent normal tax paid by the obligors upon coupons of bonds received and cashed by the taxpayer during the year 1919. The action of the Commissioner in adding the $6.51 to the taxpayer’s gross and net income was in error. Appeal of Mary Clark Kling, 1 B. T. A. 1048; Duffy v. Pitney, 2 Fed. (2d) 230.

• 3. In making his returns of income for 1918 and 1919, the taxpayer computed profits upon the sale of warehouse receipts by deducting from the amount realized on the sale the cost thereof plus the carrying charges and sales commission. This was the method of computation used even in cases where the warehouse receipts had been purchased prior to March 1, 1913. Evidence has been introduced to show that certain whiskies purchased by the taxpayer in 1911 at 26 cents a gallon and in 1912 at 31 cents a gallon had a market value at March 1, 1913, of 34 cents a gallon. This increase in value realized upon the sale of the certificates in 1918 and 1919 did not constitute taxable income. Upon the method used by the taxpayer in computing his profit from the sales of warehouse certificates he included in his net income for 1918, $266.85 in excess of the taxable profit and in his return for 1919, $1,574.07 in excess of the taxable profit. In the redetermination of deficiencies in tax these errors should be corrected.

4. The last point relates to the right of the taxpayer to deduct from the gross income of 1918 and 1919 certain amounts for alleged obsolescence of good will of the taxpayer’s liquor business, such claim being predicated upon the fact that the taxpayer was forced by prohibition legislation to discontinue his liquor business on June 30, 1919.

At the hearing, the taxpayer contended that his wholesale liquor business had some good will value at March 1, 1913, and he placed such value at $10,000 or $12,000. We think, however, that the evidence, which consists only of a statement of the earnings of the business for years prior to 1913, before any amount was deducted therefrom for compensation of the taxpayer or for return on his investment, does not prove that the business had a good will with cash value at March 1, 1913. The action of the Commissioner in disallowing the deductions of $16,359.27 and $8,923.23 from the gross .income of 1918 and 1919 for obsolescence of the value of good will must therefore be sustained.

Order of redetermination will be entered on 15 day's notice, under Rule 50.