Legal Opinion
Van Vlaanderen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided May 27, 1949No. 9828PublishedCited by 49 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
O’CONNELL, Circuit Judge.
The question presented by petitioner (“Peter”) on this appeal is whether the Tax Court erred in upholding the determination of the Commissioner that (a) certain payments were not fully-allowable deductions under Sections 22(k) and 23 (u) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S. C.A. §§ 22(k) and 23(u), and (b) a decree of a New Jersey court of chancery is not binding taxwise in so far as it modifies retroactively a husband’s alimony liability. We hold that the Tax Court acted correctly.
Elizabeth Van Vlaanderen, wife of Peter, was granted a decree nisi upon her petition…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Gould v. GouldSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Daine v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
- Daine v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1947
- Van Vlaanderen v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1948
- Duffy v. DuffyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1941
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Arnold Van Den Wymelenberg, as of the Estate of Eleanor Van Den Wymelenberg, and Arnold Van Den Wymelenberg v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1968
- James B. Taylor and Tevis Bennett Taylor v. Ellis Campbell, Jr., District Director of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1964
- Gale v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. GaleCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1951
- Gordon v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1978
- Herbert v. RiddellDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1952
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.