Strickland v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Held, petitioner, D. F. Strickland, was an employee of a political subdivision of the State of Texas and that his compensation is exempt from tax.
1Opinion of the Court
*422OPINION.
Trammell :
The petitioners contend that the compensation received by D. F. Strickland from the Hidalgo County Water Improvement District Number Two, a political subdivision of the State of Texas, for his services as attorney during the period here involved is exempt from tax. The respondent concedes that the Hidalgo County Water Improvement District Number Two is a municipal corporation and a governmental agency of the State of Texas. See Article XVI of the Constitution of Texas; Article 7731, Vernon’s Kevised Civil Statutes of Texas (1925); J. C. Engleman Land Co. v. Donna Irrigation…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- United States v. HartwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- United States v. GermaineSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Hall v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- United States v. MauriceU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Virginia · 1823
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Burges v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
- Moisseiff v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
- Strickland v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1935
- Strickland v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929