Smith v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
In 1955, petitioner paid an amount assessed against him by respondent as a "100 per cent penalty" under section 2707(a), I.R.C. 1939. Held, such payment is not deductible, either as a "loss" under section 165(c), I.R.C. 1954, or as a "bad debt" under section 166, I.R.C. 1954.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Eatjm, Judge:
The question propounded by petitioner is whether he is entitled to deduct, either as a “loss” under section 165(c) or as a “bad debt” under section 166, I.E.C. 1954, the amount paid by him in 1955 to discharge his asserted liability under section 2707(a), I.E.C. 1939.1 We agree with respondent that such payment is not deductible, for tbe reason that the allowance thereof would frustrate the public policy embodied in 1939 Code provisions “proscribing particular types of conduct” on the part of persons responsible for the collection and payment of F.I.C.A., F.U.T.A, and…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Tank Truck Rentals, Inc. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Edward J. Bloom v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
- United States v. ChouteauSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Jerry Rossman Corporation v. Commissioner of Int. Rev.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1949
- Hoover Motor Express Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- J. A. Newsome, Jr. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
- Medeiros v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1981
- Arrigoni v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1980
- Patton v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1978
- Wynne v. Fischer, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1991
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.