Legal Opinion
Carl E. Mathena and Helen B. Mathena, and v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 29, 1971No. 25027_1PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge:
The decision of the district court allowing a refund is affirmed.
Mathena, prior to July 1, 1963, was employed by Akron Savings & Loan Association (Akron), doing business in Akron, Ohio. 1 Closely allied with Akron was Bankers Guaranty Title & Trust Company (Bankers). 2 3
An arrangement was made under which Mathena could “eat his cake and keep it, too.” He drew his retirement benefits out of the retirement fund of Akron. He had been drawing a salary of $19,000 a year.
On July 1, 1963, he turned up with a new arrangement. He went on the payroll of Akron at a salary of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Walburga Oesterreich v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1955
- Estate of Delano T. Starr, Deceased, Mary W. Starr, and Mary W. Starr v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
- John W. Rogers and Creta B. Rogers v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1961
- Murphy Logging Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967
- Harlan E. Baxter and Imogene Baxter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Lovell J. Proby and Eva M. Proby v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Else v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1984
- Hoagland v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1971