Griffith v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
No office of village attorney having been created by statute or village ordinance and no showing having been made as to the degree of direction and control exercised by the village board, held, petitioner is neither officer nor employee of such village and compensation received therefrom by petitioner is not exempt from Federal taxation.
1Opinion of the Court
MELVIN L. GRIFFITH, PETITIONER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
Griffith v. Commissioner
Docket No. 46358.
United States Board of Tax Appeals
31 B.T.A. 1029; 1935 BTA LEXIS 1030;
January 15, 1935, Promulgated
No office of village attorney having been created by statute or village ordinance and no showing having been made as to the degree of direction and control exercised by the village board, held, petitioner is neither officer nor employee of such village and compensation received therefrom by petitioner is not exempt from Federal taxation.
Melvin L. Griffith, Esq., pro se.
Isadore…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Lucas v. ReedSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Lucas v. HowardSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Pitman v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1931
- Haight v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.