Pease v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Petitioner, "appointed and employed" as engineer by eight villages and one city in Ohio; compensated on a basis of percentage of cost of construction projects; furnishing, at his own expense, supplies, equipment, and necessary assistants, was not an officer of these municipalities but an independent contractor, and his earnings are subject to tax.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Goodeich:
In these proceedings, which were consolidated upon motion, petitioner contests respondent’s determinations of deficiencies in income tax as follows:
[[Image here]]
The sole issue is whether payments received by petitioner during these years from certain Ohio municipalities are exempt from Federal tax. Petitioner contends that they are so exempt because he was an officer of each of these municipalities, and, as such, was engaged in carrying out an essential function of government. Respondent determined and maintains that petitioner was an independent contractor, and has laid a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Frelmort Realty Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
- Wright v. ClarkOhio Supreme Court · 1928
- Roberts v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928
3Cited by4 opinions
- Lynch v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Hall v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1936
- Pease v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Strauss v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1937